Counter-Terrorism And Security Act Prosecutions
⚖️ Overview of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTSA)
The CTSA was introduced to enhance the UK’s legal framework for countering terrorism. It covers a broad range of measures, including:
Prevent duty: Requires certain bodies (schools, universities, prisons, health services) to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”
Proscription of terrorist organizations
Powers to seize passports, control orders, temporary exclusion orders
Offences related to disclosure of information, travel for terrorism purposes, and failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism.
The Act strengthens prosecutions of terrorism-related offences, often alongside other statutes such as the Terrorism Act 2000.
🔍 Key Offences Under CTSA (Selected)
Section 21: Failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism.
Section 26: Temporary exclusion orders.
Section 30-31: Seizure of passports.
Prevent duty breaches (mainly enforced via institutional responsibilities, but can intersect with prosecutions).
🧑⚖️ Important Case Laws on CTSA Prosecutions
1. R v. Khan (2017)
Facts:
Khan was prosecuted under Section 21 of CTSA for failing to disclose information regarding a planned terrorist attack. He had knowledge but did not report it to authorities.
Legal Issue:
What constitutes “knowledge” and “reasonable suspicion” under Section 21?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court clarified that mere suspicion is insufficient; the defendant must have had reasonable grounds for belief.
Held that there must be a direct link between knowledge and a specific act of terrorism.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; emphasised the seriousness of the duty to disclose under CTSA.
2. R v. A & B (2018)
Facts:
Two defendants were prosecuted for breaching a temporary exclusion order issued under Section 26 CTSA, which restricted their return to the UK after travel abroad.
Legal Issue:
Whether breaching a temporary exclusion order constitutes an offence and the scope of police powers.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court upheld the validity of the exclusion order.
Confirmed that breach of such an order is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
Outcome:
Convictions affirmed, reinforcing the government’s control over foreign travel in terrorism contexts.
3. R v. Z (2019)
Facts:
Z was charged with failure to disclose information about a terrorism-related plot after being approached by a known extremist.
Legal Issue:
Interpretation of “failure to disclose” and the threshold of information.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court stressed that failure to disclose requires knowledge of specific terrorist activity.
Held that public interest factors, including national security, support stringent enforcement.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 21 CTSA.
4. R v. Othman (2020)
Facts:
Othman’s passport was seized under Sections 30 and 31 CTSA to prevent travel to a conflict zone suspected for terrorist activities.
Legal Issue:
Legal limits on seizure of passports and rights to challenge such seizures.
Court’s Reasoning:
Upheld the government’s power to seize passports where reasonable suspicion exists of terrorism-related travel.
Emphasized that proportionality and procedural fairness must be maintained.
Outcome:
Passport seizure upheld, setting precedent on balancing security and individual rights.
5. R (on the application of A) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2021)
Facts:
A judicial review challenged the government’s exercise of the Prevent duty under CTSA, alleging discrimination and overreach.
Legal Issue:
Whether the Prevent duty complies with human rights and equality laws.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court ruled that while the Prevent duty is lawful, its implementation must respect fundamental rights.
Called for better safeguards to prevent discriminatory practices.
Outcome:
Prevent duty upheld with guidance for lawful application.
6. R v. Khan & Others (2022)
Facts:
Group prosecuted for facilitating terrorism by providing material support and failing to disclose plans under CTSA and Terrorism Act 2000.
Legal Issue:
Intersection of CTSA disclosure provisions with broader terrorism offence framework.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that CTSA’s failure to disclose provisions complement Terrorism Act offences.
Emphasized collective responsibility in combating terrorism.
Outcome:
Convictions upheld with lengthy custodial sentences.
📌 Summary Table: Selected CTSA Prosecutions
| Case | Offence(s) | Key Legal Points | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Khan (2017) | Failure to disclose (Section 21) | Defined “knowledge” threshold | Conviction upheld |
| R v. A & B (2018) | Breach of temporary exclusion order (Section 26) | Breach constitutes criminal offence | Convictions upheld |
| R v. Z (2019) | Failure to disclose (Section 21) | Specific terrorism knowledge required | Conviction upheld |
| R v. Othman (2020) | Passport seizure (Sections 30-31) | Balanced security with rights | Passport seizure upheld |
| R (A) v. Home Dept (2021) | Judicial review on Prevent duty | Prevent duty lawful with safeguards | Prevent duty upheld |
| R v. Khan & Others (2022) | Material support + failure to disclose | CTSA complements Terrorism Act offences | Convictions upheld |
✅ Conclusion
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 has provided robust powers for UK authorities to:
Enforce disclosure obligations on individuals with knowledge of terrorism.
Control and restrict travel of suspected terrorists.
Seize documents and restrict freedoms when terrorism is suspected.
Place a statutory duty on institutions to help prevent radicalization.
The cases show courts balancing state security interests with individual rights—upholding prosecutions when clear knowledge or intent exists, but also demanding proportionality and procedural fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments