Loading...

Criminal Law Legislation in the Fight against Terrorism - Comparing Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany

Seminar Paper 2003 40 Pages

Law - Comparative Legal Systems, Comparative Law

Excerpt

Table of contents

I Introduction – The Role of Criminal law in the Fight against Terrorism

II Germany
A Germany’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International Terrorism
2 Domestic Terrorism – The Red Army Faction
B Criminal Law Related to Terrorism
1 Definition of Terrorism
2 Terrorist offences

III the United Kingdom
A The UK’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International Terrorism
2 The Irish Republican Army
B Terrorism Provisions in UK’s Criminal Law
1 The Definition of Terrorism under UK’s Criminal Law
2 UK’s Criminal Law Offences
3 The Reversal of Burden of Proof
4 The Proscription Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000

IV Canada
A Canada’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International terrorism
2 Domestic terrorism
B Terrorism Provisions in Canada’s Criminal Law
1 Definition of Terrorism under Canada’s Criminal Law
2 Canada’s Criminal Law Offences
3 Canada’s Listing of Terrorist Groups
4 Disclosure of Information and the Privilege of Self-Incrimination

V Australia
A Australia’s Experience with Terrorism
1 International Terrorism
2 Domestic Terrorism
B Terrorism Provisions in Australia’s Criminal Law
1 Definition of Terrorism under Australia’s Criminal Law
2 Australia’s Criminal Law Offences
3 Reversal of Burden of Proof
4 Australia’s Proscription of Organization

VI New Zealand
A New Zealand’s Experience with Terrorism
B Terrorism Provisions in New Zealand’s Criminal Law
1 Definition of Terrorism under New Zealand’s Criminal Law
2 New Zealand’s Criminal Law Offences
3 New Zealand’s Designation of terrorist entities

VII Comparing the legislations
1 The Definitions of Terrorism
2 The Criminal Offences
3 The Proscription Schemes

VIII the paradoxon of defining terrorism

Bibliography

I Introduction – The Role of Criminal law in the Fight against Terrorism

The fight against terrorism has two distinct objectives. First, it implies resolving ‘political’ disputes, political in its broadest sense, comprising different areas such as the division between the rich and the poor or thedénouement of religious tensions. Or, to state it even broader: the first objective is to deal with the roots and the causes of terrorism. Secondly, the fight against terrorism means maintaining order at home, so as not to allow terrorists to reach their objective of destroying the core values in our society. Moreover, it allows the government to gain time while the international community works on the first objective. The main prospect in maintaining law and order at home is to put terrorists to trial. Thus criminal law plays an important role in the fight against terrorism.

This paper focuses exclusively on the second objective and its purpose is to survey and compare the legislation related to criminal law and terrorism in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany.

The following chapters are divided into the countries’ experience with terrorism and an overview on their criminal law relevant in the fight against terrorism.

A comparison of the terrorist legislations in these countries will lead to an evaluation of the different approaches and an answer to the question if terrorism should be defined at all in criminal law.

II Germany

A Germany’s Experience with Terrorism

1 International Terrorism

Germany went through many decades of terrorism, including attacks from international and domestic terrorist groups.

The attacks of international terrorists on German soil were not against German institutions or people but were oriented against other states: One of the most known incidents is undoubtedly the “Munich Massacre” during the Summer Olympics of 1972, where the Palestinian group “Black September” took eleven hostages from the Israeli team.[1]

Germany also played a certain role in 9/11. Mohamed Atta and other suicide pilots were registered in Hamburg, Germany.[2] Additionally, the first process against a person involved in 9/11 was carried out in Hamburg. The accused Motassadeq who studied with Atta at Hamburg University was convicted as an accessory to the murder of more than 3,000 people in New York and Washington and of being a member of an outlawed terrorist group.[3]

2 Domestic Terrorism – The Red Army Faction

The most prominent domestic terrorist group[4] is the Red Army Faction[5] (Die Rote Armee Fraktion, RAF) a.k.a. Baader-Meinhof Gang.

The RAF was a German radical leftist group responsible for bombing attacks on that was active from the early 1970s to 1998, when it officially disbanded. The members of the RAF were responsible for the kidnapping and murder of top-officials and directors of business companies, and attacks on US military facilities.

Key members were arrested in June 1972 but the bombing attacks went on, committed by the ‘Second Generation’ of RAF members in order to get the leaders out of jail, who were facing trial at that time.[6] After the failure of kidnapping and hostage taking by the RAF with the intent to press the imprisoned members of the RAF free, Baader and his comrades committed suicide in their prison cells.

The fight of the RAF continued until 20 April 1998, when a last communiqué was released confirming officially the disbanding of the RAF.[7]

Even though targets had been chosen among the capitalist elite of the country[8] and civilians had been spared in the greatest possible extent, the RAF struggle against capitalism and imperialism caused 67 dead and 230 wounded on both sides.[9]

B Criminal Law Related to Terrorism

1 Definition of Terrorism

German criminal law does not define terrorism.

2 Terrorist offenc es

In Germany, suspects of terrorist violence are not prosecuted for specific terrorism offences but rather for ‘normal’ criminal law provisions, such as murder, arson and kidnapping. The only specific provisions related to terrorism in the German Criminal Law Act seem to be s 129 (a) and (b).

Planning and organizing ’normal’ crimes is on principle punishable, but only if the planning of aspecific crime could be proven. S 129 (a) of the German Criminal Act closes this loophole in advancing the culpability to punish a person who is merely organizing or fostering a criminal (terrorist) group. So no proof of any violent act is necessary to punish a terrorist activity. Apart from the effect of closing the gap in the Criminal Code, the provision was seen to be necessary to make it clear that politically motivated violence, which threatens the constitution and community, will not be tolerated.[10]

However, contrary to the assumption of many lawyers, section 129 (a) is not an offence in itself and it has, at least directly, nothing to do with terrorism. Insofar, even the (official) title of the section is misleading, when naming it “Section 129 (a) Formation of terrorist organization”.[11]

As mentioned above, there is no terrorism definition in the German Criminal Code and the reason for this is that there is no terrorism offence. Section 129 (a) only qualifies section 129, which punishes the formation of or the participation in an organization of which the objectives or activity are directed towards the commission of crimes.[12] And section 129 (a) only lists some crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, genocide and arson, that, when committed or intended by such an organization described in section 129, lead to a more severe sentence.[13] Hence, section 129 (a) only punishes a criminal organization (section 129) that resorts to cruel violence. That this is often true for a terrorist organization is due to the fact that terror organizations are criminal organizations that resort to this kind of violence, but it does not transform section 129 (a) in a terrorism provision.

The absence of any specific criminal offence does not have the consequence that being a terrorist does not play a role in sentencing the accused. Acting in terrorist motives is to be construed as aggravating circumstance, thus imposing a more severe sentence.[14]

Contrary to currentzeitgeist, in 2002, the German government even narrowed the offence of section 129 (a) down: the German word “werben” which means ‘to recruit’ but also to “campaign for someone/something” was amended in “Mitglieder werben” (meaning literally ‘to recruit members’). Thus prior to the amendment, section 129 (a) encompasses every statement in favour of a terrorist group,[15] but comprises now recruitment only.

Germany’s lack of a terrorist definition is of course due to the fact that there is no specific terrorist provision in its criminal law.

Terrorists are deemed to be normal criminals, thus no specific provision is necessary. They are punishable for example under sections 211 (murder), 212 (manslaughter), 239a (kidnapping), 239b (hostage taking), 306c (arson resulting in death), 315 (dangerous interference with rail, ship and air traffic) or 308 (causing an explosion by use of explosives) of the German Criminal Code. Nuclear and chemical terrorism fall under sections 307 (causing an explosion by nuclear power) or 309 (misuse of ionizing radiation) and 314 (poisoning dangerous to the public) respectively; and “cyber-terrorism” is covered by s 303b (computer sabotage).[16]

III the United Kingdom

A The UK’s Experience with Terrorism

1 International Terrorism

The UK has witnessed some attacks against its citizens abroad, and bombings and assassinations within its borders by foreign insurgents: 94 incidents of international terrorism were counted in the UK until November 1998.[17]

The most infamous incident is the case of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, bound for New York and which exploded over the village of Lockerbie, Scotland causing 259 deaths on board and 11 on the ground.[18] Two Libyans were tried in the Netherlands under Scottish law and one was sentenced to life imprisonment[19], his later appeal was dismissed.[20]

Short after 9/11, Richard Reid, a British citizen tried to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, he later pleaded guilty and declared himself a follower of Osama bin Laden.[21]

The Irish struggle, however, had the principal influence upon British society and legislation in the last decades.

2 The Irish Republican Army

The IRA is fighting for the reunification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. The IRA’s armed struggle consists of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, extortions, and robberies against the British Army, the Ulster security forces, and other officials, but also against civilians in and outside Northern Ireland.

After decades of fierce bombings and killings a cease-fire was achieved in September 1994, which broke down in 1996. Nonetheless, a peace talk was set in motion in 1998, when on 10 April 1998 the “Good Friday Agreement”[22] was signed.[23] This agreement is opposed by a splinter group of the IRA the so-called “Real IRA” who is responsible for ongoing attacks in Northern Ireland and the UK.[24]

Compared to the figures of the RAF[25] the consequences of the violence since 1969 are far more shocking: about 3.300 people (out of a population of 1.5 million) have been killed in Northern Ireland alone,[26] the IRA itself killed about 1.800 people, including 650 civilians.[27]

B Terrorism Provisions in UK’s Criminal Law

1 The Definition of Terrorism under UK’s Criminal Law

Terrorism is defined in the notion of “terrorist activity” in section 1 Terrorism Act 2000.[28]

This provision defines terrorist activity in three main aspects: firstly, it enumerates a range of acts in subsection 1 (2): causing serious harm to persons or serious damage to property; endangering life; creating a serious risk to public health or safety; or seriously interfering with or disrupt an electronic system.

Secondly, these already prohibited actions receive the “distinguishing terrorist dimension”[29], that is a motive in carrying out such actions: the action is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public,[30]and thirdly, to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.[31]

It could be argued that this definition would encompass the acts of "eco-terrorists" campaigning against genetically modified food products by destroying valuable seedbeds,[32] and also acts of animal rights activists causing property damage. To fall under this definition seems to be particularly likely if such groups use arms, because pursuant to section 1(3) TA 2000 in that case subsection 1(1b) (=threat to influence the government or to intimidate the public) need not to be met. The width of this terrorism definition is deliberate since the British government held the threat of indigenous groups, animal rights activists,[33] and possibly anti-abortion groups[34] as the “new domestic terrorist threats” in addition to the threats of the Irish struggle and international terrorists.[35]

But even when not carrying arms, section 1(1b) does not seem to be a high hurdle. It must be noted that s 1(1b) was not even included in the government’s bill, but later added as Lord’s amendment.[36] It is the word “influence” that attracted a high controversy in the British parliament and which is watering the definition. The consultation paper on terrorism proposed as part of the definition the narrowing aspect of ‘to intimidate or coerce a government’.[37] But the government insisted on the wide term of “to influence”. One reason could be the general difficulty to prove this subjective aspect in court.

2 UK’s Criminal Law Offences

The TA 2000 provides an extensive list of offences that have either the just-mentioned definition as required element or are connected to a proscribed terrorist organization:

- Membership[38] in and support[39] of a terrorist organization,

- Wearing clothing or carrying an article that makes the authorities reasonable suspicious that one may be a member a terrorist organisation,[40]
- Offences related to terrorist property,[41] such as fund-raising and money laundering,[42]
- Failure of disclosing information connected to terrorism financing,[43]
- Disclosing information that affects a terrorist investigation,[44]
- Weapons training,[45]
- Directing of an organization involved in acts of terrorism,[46]
- Possession of article for terrorist purposes,[47]
- Collection of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism,[48] and
- Inciting terrorism.[49]

Some aspects concerning these offences are noticeable.

First, the offences of possessing articles or collecting information seem to be extremely broad: “information of a kindlikely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”,[50] or possessing an article “which give rise to areasonable suspicion” that it is connected with terrorism,[51] could be anything, from a map of Manhattan, over a chemistry book, to a ‘make your own H-bomb’–website[52] saved on your home computer. A reasonable excuse for this possession is to be proved by the persons charged with this offence.[53]

The offence of ‘wearing of suspicious clothes’ is a considerable restriction of the privilege of freedom of expression, and to wear a t-shirt with Osama bin Laden’s portrait could probably entail a sentence of up to six months.

3 The Reversal of Burden of Proof

Some offences require the defendants to prove their innocence; the burden of proof is thus initially swapped from the prosecution to the defendant.

For example the defendant has to prove that he or she has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time while it was proscribed.[54] Various other offences have to varying degrees similar subsections, such as arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation,[55] money laundering,[56] failure to disclose information,[57] disclosing information that affects a terrorist investigation,[58] weapons training,[59] possession for terrorist purposes,[60] and collection of information.[61]

These reversals are softened in the sense that when the defendant can adduce evidence, “which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.”[62] However, this section does not apply for the membership offence, the offence of failure to disclose information and of money laundering.[63] In these three cases the defendant has to prove his or her defence, and the burden of proof is in fact reversed.

4 The Proscription Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000

The TA 2000 not only proscribes certain Terrorist organizations but also allows the Secretary of State to proscribe any other organization he or she believes to be “concerned in terrorism”.[64] An organization is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned with terrorism.[65] Thus, the Secretary of State can outlaw an organization without this organization having the possibility to defend itself. Furthermore, no court proceeding must be met. The organization has only the possibility to appeal against the recent proscription in front of a special institution, the Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission. Additionally, the facts of whether an organization is “concerned to terrorism” are not disclosed, because the gathering of information is a matter of UK intelligence and security services. This, however, is seen as “necessary evil”.[66]

Once proscribed, being a member of such an outlawed organization, supporting it, which includes for instance organizing a meeting, is punishable pursuant to sections 11 and 12 TA 2000.

However, the government seems to restrict itself in its powers, because all organizations proscribed are well-known terrorist groups.[67] It would possibly be even harder to proscribe for example an animal rights group officially, namely writing it on a list with Al Quaida and Hamas, than for a judge to come to the decision that this entity constitutes a terrorist organization. The Former would clearly be accompanied by a public outcry, the latter probably known only among lawyers.

IV Canada

A Canada’s Experience with Terrorism

1 International terrorism

Canada’s fight against international terrorism is mainly engaged in securing the 9.000 km border to the US.[68] In 1999 for example, an Algerian citizen, alleged member of Armed Islamic Group (an Algerian Terrorist Organization), tried to enter the US with bomb-making materials and to launch an attack on Los Angeles International Airport.[69]

2 Domestic terrorism

In the 1960, Canada was shocked by some bomb attacks from the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ), whose ultimate goal was the independence of the French-speaking province of Quebec. In the “October Crisis”[70] of 1970, the FLQ first kidnapped the British Trade Commissioner and later kidnapped and killed Quebec’s labour and immigration minister.[71] Their kidnappers were tried and convicted. The FLQ has not been active for decades and did not achieve its goal of an independent state.

B Terrorism Provisions in Canada’s Criminal Law

The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted in December 2001.[72] It inserts for the first time a definition of terrorist activity in the criminal code, which entails new offences and forms thus a new separate part of the Canadian Criminal Code.[73]

[...]


[1] See Wikipedia Encyclopaedia <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre> (last accessed 30 April 2003).

[2] James I Nelson “Antiterrorismus: The German Experience with Politically Motivated Violence” (2002) 20 Penn St Int’l Law Review 563, 583, 584.

[3] See Cnn.com “Profile: Mounir el Motassadeq” (19.2.2003) <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/19/motassadeq.background/index.html> (last accessed 30 April 2003).

[4] Other groups are the 2 June Movement (Bewegung 2. Juni), the Guerrilla Diffusa (GD), the Revolutionary Cells (Revolutionäre Zellen, RZ).

[5] The English word ‘fraction’ (with an R) seems at first glance to fit better as translation from the German word ‘Fraktion’. However, the term ‘faction’ is widely used (translated in German as (Splitter-)Gruppe), so I will use it here, too.

[6] Main charges against them were the murder of four U.S. soldiers, the attempted murder of 54 other persons, robbery and forming of a criminal group.

[7] See “disbandment declaration” (Auflösungserklärung) Raf Info Homepage <http://www.rafinfo.de/archiv/raf/raf-20-4-98.php> (in German) (last accessed 30 April 2003); see also “Red Army Faction gives up the Fight” (21 April 1998) at BBCNews.co.uk <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/81124.stm> (last accessed 23 May 2003).

[8] And the US military as protest against the Vietnam war.

[9] Additionally: 31 bank robberies, 180 stolen cars, 517 persons sentenced to be members of a terrorist organization, 914 persons sentenced to have participated in a terror organization, see Horst Herold (former president of BKA=Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation) in Süddeutsche Zeitung 20 Mai 2000 available at <http://www.partetour.de/forum/messages/THEMEN_Samstag-1.html> (in German) (last accessed 23 May 2003).

[10] James I Nelson “Antiterrorismus: The German Experience with Politically Motivated Violence” (2002) 20 Penn St Int’l Law Review 563, 578.

[11] See s 129 a GCC, German Law Archive at <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#129a> (last accessed 22 May 2003).

[12] See s 129 GCC, German Law Archive at <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#129> (last accessed 22 May 2003).

[13] S 129 GCC: max 5 years; s 129 (a) GCC min 3 years, max 10 years.

[14] James I Nelson “Antiterrorismus: The German Experience with Politically Motivated Violence” (2002) 20 Penn St Int’l Law Review 563, 578; see also First Report to the Counter-Terrorism Committee (2 January 2002), s 2 (e) p 16 at United Nations Website <http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1373/11e.pdf> (last accessed 22 May 2003).

[15] so-called “Sympathiewerbung”=Sympathy-Campaigning; the highest German court held, for example, that to write “RAF wird siegen=RAF will win” on a wall is punishable under former s 129 (a) GCC.

[16] See to all these sections in English: German Law Archive <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm> (last accessed 12.6.2003).

[17] See Home OfficeLegislation against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper s 2.3 at Official Documents Archive UK <http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-02.htm> (last accessed 19 May 2003).

[18] Jan Robert NashTerrorism in the 20th Century (M. Evans and Company, New York, 1998) 247; see also BBCNews.co.uk “Analysis: Lockerbie’s long road” <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1144147.stm> (last accessed 1 May 2003).

[19] See BBCNews.co.uk “Analysis: Lockerbie’s long road” at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1144147.stm> (last accessed 1 May 2003).

[20] See BBCNews.co.uk “Lockerbie bomber loses appeal” at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1868394.stm> (last accessed 1 May 2003).

[21] See BBC.com “Shoe bomber pleads guilty” at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2298031.stm> (last accessed 12.6.2003)

[22] Also known as Belfast Agreement, text of agreement can be found online at Government of Ireland Website <http://www.gov.ie/iveagh/angloirish/goodfriday/default.htm> (last accessed 1 May 2003).

[23] For the historical background to the agreement see BBCNews.co.uk’s interactive chronicle of the Northern Ireland conflict <http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/education/stateapart/agreement/> (last accessed 23 May 2003).

[24] See Wikipedia Encyclopaedia for more information about the Real IRA <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army> (last accessed 1 May 2003).

[25] See above chapter II A 2 (RAF).

[26] SeeLegislation against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper s 2.2 at Official Documents Archive UK <http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-02.htm> (last accessed 19 May 2003).

[27] Data taken from the American think tank Council of Foreign Relations at Terrorismanswers.com <http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/ira.html> (last accessed 1 May 2003).

[28] See Terrorism Act 2000, s 1; the TA 2000 is available online at Her Majesty’s Stationery Office <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1> (last accessed 20 May 2003).

[29] Christopher Harding “International Terrorism: The British Response” [2002] Sing J Legal Stud 16 chapter III.

[30] Terrorism Act 2000, s 1(1b).

[31] Terrorism Act 2000, s 1(1c).

[32] Christopher Harding “International Terrorism: The British Response” [2002] Sing J Legal Stud 16, footnote 5.

[33] 800 incidents were recorded by the Animal Rights National Index (ARNI), seeLegislation against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper s 3.10 at Official Documents Archive UK <http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-03.htm> (last accessed 19 May 2003).

[34] SeeLegislation against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper s 3.12 at Official Documents Archive UK <http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-03.htm> (last accessed 19 May 2003).

[35] See on this new domestic threat:Legislation against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper Chapter 3 at Official Documents Archive UK <http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-03.htm> (last accessed 19 May 2003).

[36] Helen Fenwick “Responding to 11 September: Detention without Trial under the Ant-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001” 80, 102 fn 25 in Lawrence Freedman (ed)Superterrorism – Policy Responses (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2002).

[37] SeeLegislation against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper s 3.17 at Official Documents Archive UK <http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4178/chap-03.htm> (last accessed 19 May 2003).

[38] Terrorism Act 2000, s 11.

[39] Terrorism Act 2000, s 12.

[40] Terrorism Act 2000, s 13.

[41] Defined in Terrorism Act 2000, s 14.

[42] Terrorism Act 2000, s 15 and s 18 respectively.

[43] Terrorism Act 2000, s 19(2).

[44] Terrorism Act 2000, s 39(2) and (4).

[45] Terrorism Act 2000, s 54 and s 55.

[46] Terrorism Act 2000, s 56.

[47] Terrorism Act 2000, s 57.

[48] Terrorism Act 2000, s 58.

[49] Terrorism Act 2000, s 59-61.

[50] Terrorism Act 2000, s 58(1), emphasis added.

[51] Terrorism Act 2000, s 57(1), emphasis added.

[52] If interested, see <http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio/fun/make-your-own-h-bomb.html> (last accessed 14.6.2003).

[53] See Terrorism Act 2000, s 57(2) and s 58(3), and see below section ‘Reversal of burden of proof’.

[54] Terrorism Act 2000, s 11(2b).

[55] Terrorism Act 2000, s 12(4), “Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.”

[56] Terrorism Act 2000, s 18(2), “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist property.”

[57] Terrorism Act 2000, s 19(3), “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.”

[58] Terrorism Act 2000, s 39(5).

[59] Terrorism Act 2000, s 54(5), “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in relation to instruction or training to prove that his action or involvement was wholly for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism.”

[60] Terrorism Act 2000, s 57(2), “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.”

[61] Terrorism Act 2000, s 58(3), “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.”

[62] Terrorism Act 2000, s 118(2).

[63] See Terrorism Act 2000, s 118(5).

[64] Terrorism Act 2000, s 3(4).

[65] Terrorism Act 2000, s 3(5).

[66] seeReport on the Operation in 2001 of the Terrorism Act 2000, s 2.5, online at Home Office for England and Wales <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tact_report.pdf> (last accessed 20 May 2003).

[67] see full list at Home Office for England and Wales Homepage <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/threat/groups/index.html> (last accessed 20 May 2003).

[68] See BBCNews.co.uk “Country Profile Canada” at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1198865.stm> (last accessed 12.6.2003).

[69] Council of Foreign Relation Homepage (US think-tank) “Canada, Australia, and New Zealand” at <http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/canada.html> (last accessed 12.6.2003)

[70] See Wikipeda Encyclopaedia “October Crisis” <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis> (last accessed 12.6.2003).

[71] See Wikipeda Encyclopaedia “Front de Libération du Québec” <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%E9ration_du_Qu%E9bec> (last accessed 12.6.2003).

[72] The bill’s number is C-36.

[73] Kent Roach “Canada’s New Anti Terrorism Law” [2002] Sing J Legal Stud 122, 122; see Canadian Criminal Code Part II.1. Terrorism.

Details

Pages
40
Year
2003
ISBN (eBook)
9783638625418
File size
540 KB
Language
English
Catalog Number
v72079
Institution / College
Victoria University of Wellington – Victoria Law School
Grade
A
Tags
Criminal Legislation Fight Terrorism Comparing Great Britain Canada Australia Zealand Germany International

Author

Share

Previous

Title: Criminal Law Legislation in the Fight against Terrorism - Comparing Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany