The aim of this thesis is to assess the justifications for various extensions of the criminal law introduced to combat terrorism, in particular those extensions that go beyond the existing remit of inchoate offences and extend liability to earlier acts and intentions. Its method is to begin by exploring the principles of criminal law theory that ought to apply to such extensions; to interrogate the definition of terrorism; and then to examine four recent classes of offence in counter-terrorism legislation that extend the criminal law beyond its legitimate boundaries. These offences are collectively referred to in this thesis as 'preventive terrorism offences' to reflect the fact that the primary rationale for their enactment is to prevent terrorism. The thesis concludes by assessing the place of these offences within the government's overall counter-terrorism strategy, focusing in particular on the Prevent leg of the strategy, which aims to reduce extremism and tackle the root causes of terrorism. The preventive terrorism offences display several very troubling features, most notably that they have the potential to criminalise non-wrongful conduct. It is argued that by virtue of their ability to criminalise non-wrongful conduct the offences under examination diminish the legitimacy and moral force of the criminal law. Furthermore, by extending inchoate liability to very remote acts of preparation, possession, encouragement, and association, the criminal law occupies the same operational space as measures under the Prevent strategy that are intended to be reintegrative. This overlap has the potential to render the offences counterproductive to the larger counter-terrorism endeavour by creating the perception that the Prevent strategy is in fact a covert surveillance mechanism to gather intelligence for future prosecutions. This perception leads to further mistrust and alienation of individuals and communities who feel disproportionately targeted by these measures. Thus, the offences not only offend criminal law principles and values, but also have the potential to offend the very preventive justification that is given for their enactment.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:712068 |
| Date | January 2015 |
| Creators | Simon, Joanna |
| Contributors | Zedner, Lucia |
| Publisher | University of Oxford |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d60038d1-fc76-4845-8ea9-3f6e2c58129e |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds