No 10 should not go ahead with plans to amend the law on glorifying terrorism in the wake of the pro-Palestinian marches because it would do “no favours” to the police, MI5 or the probation service, a government adviser has said.
In a 15-page report to the Home Office, Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was no need to respond to the marches with new terrorism legislation, adding that there were “good reasons for caution” given both the risk of unintended consequences and the drain on limited state resources.
Ministers said they wanted to tighten the law on glorifying terrorism after the behaviour of a minority of people at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in recent weeks, including the chanting of the controversial slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, prompted calls for change. Some see the words as anti-Semitic and inciting the destruction of Israel.
In his advice to Home Secretary James Cleverly, Hall wrote that changes to terrorism legislation would not be the right way to go, given the extreme seriousness of the crimes they cover, the need for precision in the law and the risk of causing “undue harm” to the right to freedom of expression.
He said: “My overall conclusion is that there is no need to legislate for changes to terrorism legislation now, and there are good reasons for caution.
“It is difficult to identify any real situations where a gap in terrorism legislation means that terrorist mischief cannot currently be dealt with by arrest and prosecution.
“Given the number of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, there have been plenty of opportunities for gaps to become apparent. There may well be other mischief (such as anti-Semitism), but that is not a subject for terrorism legislation.
“There is a general danger of legislating in response to one set of protests because of the risk of unintended consequences when new legislation is applied to other protests.”
Hall added that “unnecessarily widening the scope of terrorist offences” would put further strain on the already overstretched security services.
“Either the investigative agencies dramatically shift their resources or ignore new terrorist offences,” he warned. “If individuals are convicted and sentenced to prison terms, this has major resource implications for their management in prison and on release.”
Glorifying terrorism is already a criminal offence, but only if people could reasonably infer that there is an encouragement to emulate the behaviour. Hall warned that broadening the offence should be immediately ruled out.
He wrote: “The definition of terrorism applies as well to the anti-apartheid actions of Nelson Mandela and the revolutionary battles of Scotland’s William Wallace as it does to the terrorist attacks of 7/7. There are many other examples. A general solution of banning all references to terrorists or terrorist acts in public demonstrations can therefore be rejected out of hand.
Hall said it was already an offence to belong to a proscribed organisation, to wear an article associated with it, to deliberately invite support for it or to recklessly encourage support for it, and that the laws had been written precisely to target those who posed a real danger to the public.
He wrote: “Particularly on political matters or issues of public concern, members of the public should not be deterred from exercising their freedom of expression and right of lawful assembly on the basis of laws which are vague or which they cannot be expected to understand.