I have also asked Mr. Anderson to consider whether, under the provisions of Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, he would be committing an offence by failing to report these matters to the Police.
First, here is the text of my email to Mr. Anderson:
Mr Anderson,I am writing to you in your role as the reviewer of terrorist legislation to ask you to review the proposed arming of Syrian rebels in the light of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006.I am copying this email to my constituency MP, Sir Robert Smith for information.It seems to me that the actions of the Syrian rebels may fairly be considered to be "terrorism" in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for life to assist another to commit acts of terrorism.It seems to me that the proposed arming of Syrian rebels may fairly be seen as assisting them to commit acts of terrorism.I have expanded on my reasoning here: http://www.fuqq.eu/2013/06/is-arming-syrian-rebels-criminal.htmlI ask you to consider this matter for inclusion in your next Report to Parliament and whether, in light of Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 you have, or may have in the near future, a duty to act in the manner specified in that Section of the Act.It occurs to me that Sir Robert may also have a duty to act in accordance with Section 38B. I provide a link to the relevant text here:
I'll post the current text of Section 38B here for convenience (the link to the text is in my email to Mr. Anderson above):I am due to meet Sir Robert today and I imagine he might find your views on whether or not the actions of the Syrian rebels can fairly be viewed as "terrorism" in UK Law of some assistance as he decides how to proceed.I hope you will feel able to reply.Thank you(Dr) Andrew Watt
38B Information about acts of terrorism(1)This section applies where a person has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance—It seems to me, assuming that my reasoning is correct regarding acts of "terrorism" by Syrian rebels that Mr. Anderson (he is based in London) has a duty to report the matter to a constable with a view to preventing acts of terrorism.
(a)in preventing the commission by another person of an act of terrorism, or
(b)in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person, in the United Kingdom, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(2)The person commits an offence if he does not disclose the information as soon as reasonably practicable in accordance with subsection (3).
(3)Disclosure is in accordance with this subsection if it is made—
(a)in England and Wales, to a constable,
(b)in Scotland, to a constable, or
(c)in Northern Ireland, to a constable or a member of Her Majesty’s forces.
(4)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for not making the disclosure.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine or to both, or
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(6)Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken, and the offence may for the purposes of those proceedings be treated as having been committed, in any place where the person to be charged is or has at any time been since he first knew or believed that the information might be of material assistance as mentioned in subsection (1).
Similarly, it seems to me that Sir Robert also has a duty to report the matter to a constable whether in Scotland (where his constituency is) or in England (when he attends Parliament).
No comments:
Post a Comment