2151

House of Commons

Notices of Amendments

given on

Thursday 15th May 2008

Consideration of Bill

---

Counter-Terrorism Bill, As Amended

Extension of detention under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC1

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)	The Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, Part III (Extension of Detention under

Section 41) is amended as follows.

(2)	After sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 29 (Warrants of further detention) there is

inserted—

“(7)	Nothing in this Part is to be read as requiring the judicial authority to act

in a manner inconsistent with the right of the specified person to a fully

judicial procedure in Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human

Rights.”.

(3)	After sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 31(Notices) there is inserted—

“(e)	a statement of the suspicion which forms the basis for the

person’s original arrest and continued detention, and

(f)	the gist of the material on which the suspicion is based.”.

(4)	Before sub-sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph 32(1) (Grounds for extension)

there is inserted—

“(aa)

there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has

been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of a

terrorist offence,”.

(5)	Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 33 (Representation) is deleted and there is

inserted in its place—

“(1)	The person to whom an application relates shall be entitled—

(a)	to appear in person before the judicial authority and make oral

representations about the application,

(b)	to be legally represented by counsel at the hearing,

(c)	to legal aid for such representation,

Notices of Amendments: 15th May 2008

2152

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

(d)	to be represented by a special advocate at any closed part of the

hearing of the application, and

(e)	through his representative, to cross examine the investigating

officer.”.

(6)	After sub-paragraph (3)(b) of paragraph 33 there is inserted—

“if the judicial authority is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for

believing that the exclusion of the person and/or his representative is

necessary in order to avoid any of the harms set out in sub-paragraphs (1)

to (g) of paragraph 34(2) below.”.’.

Lower threshold for charging in terrorism cases

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC2

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)	When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with an

offence having a terrorist connection, a Crown Prosecutor may apply the

“Threshold Test” for charging if the conditions in subsection (3) below are

satisfied.

(2)	The “Threshold Test” for charging is met where there is at least a reasonable

suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence having a terrorist connection.

(3)	The conditions which must be satisfied for the Threshold Test to apply are—

(a)	it would not be appropriate to release the suspect on bail after charge;

(b)	the evidence required to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction is

not yet available; and

(c)	it is reasonable to believe that such evidence will become available

within a reasonable time.

(4)	The factors to be considered in deciding whether the Threshold Test of reasonable

suspicion is met include—

(a)	the evidence available at the time;

(b)	the likelihood and nature of further evidence being obtained;

(c)	the reasonableness for believing that evidence will become available;

(d)	the time it will take to gather that evidence and the steps being taken to

do so;

(e)	the impact the expected evidence will have on the case;

(f)	the charges that the evidence will support.

(5)	Where a Crown Prosecutor make a charging decision in accordance with the

Threshold Test, the person charged shall be immediately informed of the fact that

they have been charged on the standard of reasonable suspicion.

(6)	When the person charged on the Threshold Test is brought before the Court it

shall be the duty of the Crown Prosecutor to inform the Court of that fact.

(7)	The Court shall set a timetable for the receipt of the additional evidence and for

the application of the normal test for charging as set out in the Code for Crown

Prosecutors.

(8)	The Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service shall report annually on

the operation of the Threshold Test in terrorism cases.’.

Notices of Amendments: 15th May 2008

2153

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

Bail for terrorism offences

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC3

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)	The Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, is amended as follows.

(2)	After paragraph 37 there is inserted—

“Part IV

Bail

38	The judicial authority with power to extend detention under section 41

has power to release the suspect on bail, with conditions.”.’.

Post-charge questioning: safeguards

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC4

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)	Reference in this section to “post-charge questioning” relate only to post-charge

questioning for a terrorism offence, in accordance with section 27—

(a)	in England and Wales, in accordance with section 24;

(b)	in Scotland, in accordance with section 25; and

(c)	in Northern Ireland, in accordance with section 26.

(2)	Post-charge questioning must be judicially authorised in advance.

(3)	Post-charge questioning shall be confined to questioning about new evidence

which has come to light since the accused person was charged and which could

not reasonable have come to light before.

(4)	The total period of post-charge questioning shall last for no more than five days

in aggregate.

(5)	Post-charge questioning may only take place in the presence of the defendant’s

lawyer.

(6)	Post-charge questioning shall always be video-recorded.

(7)	The judge who authorised post-charge questioning shall review the transcript of

the questioning after it has taken place, to ensure that it remained within the scope

of questioning under subsection (2) and was completed within the time allowed

under subsection (3).

(8)	Post-charge questioning for a terrorism offence shall never be permissible after

the beginning of the defendant’s trial for that offence.’.

Notices of Amendments: 15th May 2008

2154

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

Control orders: pre-conditions

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC5

To move the following Clause:—

‘After sub-paragraph (b) in section 2(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

there is inserted—

“; and (c) unless section 3(1)(b) below applies, the DPP has certified that

there is no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the subject of

the order for a terrorism-related offence.”.’.

Control orders: ongoing review of possibility of prosecution

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC6

To move the following Clause:—

‘After subsection (6) of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 there

is inserted—

“(6A)

The Secretary of State shall, throughout the period during which the

control order has effect—

(a)	ensure that the question of whether there is a reasonable prospect

of successfully prosecuting the subject of the order for a

terrorism-related offence is kept under review at least every three

months;

(b)	consult the police prior to such review; and

(c)	share with the police such information as is available to him

which is relevant to the prospects of a successful prosecution.”.’.

Control orders: reasons for decisions on prospects of prosecution

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC7

To move the following Clause:—

‘After subsection (2) of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 there

is inserted—

“(2A)

If the chief officer advises the Secretary of State that there is no realistic

prospect of prosecution, he shall give reasons for his view.

Notices of Amendments: 15th May 2008

2155

Counter-Terrorism Bill, continued

(2B)	The chief officer’s reasons shall be disclosed to the controlled person to

the extent that such disclosure would not be contrary to the public

interest.”.’.

Control orders: cumulative effect of restrictions relevant to determination about

deprivation

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC8

To move the following Clause:—

‘After subsection (10) of section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 there

is inserted—

“(10A)

In determining whether the effect of a non-derogating control order is to

deprive a person of their liberty, the factors to which the court shall have

regard must include,

(a)	the nature, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the

restrictions, and

(b)	the cumulative effect of the obligations.

(10B)

The combination of obligations may amount to a deprivation of liberty

even if no individual obligation amounts to such a deprivation.”.’.

Control orders: maximum limit on daily curfews

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC9

To move the following Clause:—

‘After subsection (5) of section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 there

is inserted—

“(5A)

The duration of any prohibition or restriction on the controlled person’s

movements shall not exceed 12 hours in any 24 hour period.”.’.

Control orders: right to a fair hearing

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

John Austin

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC10

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)	At the end of subsection (13) of section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

there is inserted—

---

Revised 16 May 2008