‘A former Ukip member who posted violent racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic propaganda online and collected the means for making bombs has been jailed for 18 years.’
The Guardian, 14th June 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘More than one in 10 terror suspects arrested in Britain is a child, figures reveal amid mounting concerns over online radicalisation. Thirteen per cent of those arrested in the 12 months to March under terrorism laws were aged under 18, up five per cent.’
The Independent, 10th June 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist, was lawfully killed on London Bridge by armed police after stabbing two people at a prisoner rehabilitation event while wearing a fake suicide belt, an inquest jury has concluded.’
The Guardian, 10th June 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A “right-wing extremist” has been jailed for possessing manuals on knife fighting and making explosives.’
BBC News, 25th May 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A man has been jailed for trying to frame an innocent person over the Westminster terror attack. Gerald Banyard, 67, fed police falsified information claiming a second man was involved in Khalid Masood’s deadly car and knife rampage “out of spite for his former landlord”.’
The Independent, 20th May 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A murderer who tried to help one of the victims of the London Bridge terror attack has been cleared by the Parole Board to be freed from prison.’
BBC News, 21st May 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The elder brother of the Manchester Arena bombers has asked for immunity from prosecution in return for answering questions at the public inquiry into the terror attack.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Mental health assessments are being conducted in the presence of police in little-known hubs that embed nurses and psychologists with counter-terrorism units, raising “serious ethical concerns”, a medical charity has said.’
The Guardian, 19th May 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A former probationary police officer has been sentenced at the Old Bailey to a total of four years and four months in prison after he was exposed as a secret member of a neo-Nazi group.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 30th April 2021
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
‘The biggest shake-up of terrorist sentencing and monitoring in decades has been granted Royal Assent today (29 April 2021) – giving the courts, police and security services greater powers to protect the public.’
Ministry of Justice, 29th April 2021
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘A man who became the first British police officer convicted of belonging to a neo-Nazi terrorist organisation has been dismissed from the Metropolitan police without notice.’
The Guardian, 21st April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The security services and police are to face questions over whether they missed the chance to stop a convicted terrorist out on licence with an electronic tag who stabbed two people to death. On Monday, the inquests open into the deaths of Jack Merritt, 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, who were killed in the November 2019 attack at Fishmongers hall, near London Bridge at a prisoner rehabilitation conference.’
The Guardian, 12th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The daughter of a Muslim man who was murdered by a white supremacist as he walked home from evening prayers at a Birmingham mosque is launching a campaign calling for the government to adopt an official definition of Islamophobia.’
The Guardian, 5th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Home Office’s refusal to disclose the number of women who, like Shamima Begum, have been deprived of their British citizenship after travelling to join Islamic State is under investigation by the information commissioner.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Supreme Court has come under significant criticism for its handling of the Shamima Begum case, decided on 26 February. Much has already been said in relation to the deference that the court showed to the executive, with some arguing that it was improper or even a complete abdication of the judicial role itself. This post seeks to clarify what precisely the court did and did not do in relation to the exercise of its constitutional duty to review the legality of executive action. It will suggest that the Court did not engage in any strong deference as to the nature of Begum’s rights nor to the balance to be struck between those rights and the common good. Such questions remained wholly within the purview of the Court. While the Court did pay due respect to the executive’s authority to determine and pursue the common good, this was subject to an assessment of lawfulness. Any deference, if it can even be called deference, was to the rule of law, given both the statutory scheme in question and the common law distinction between review and appeal. The determination of the scope of individual rights entails an exercise of judicial interpretation which seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the applicable legal considerations. It is not deference for the court to include constitutional principles such as the separation of powers within those considerations.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission for Shamima Begum to return to the UK. The Supreme Court judgment in the high-profile case of the British woman who left the UK as a 15-year-old girl to travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State, however, resulted in the Court effectively washing its hands of the case staying it until a full hearing can occur in future—a remote possibility. In the judgment, Lord Reed held the Court of Appeal was in error by substituting its own view of the balance to be struck between national security and the applicant’s rights. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment due respect. In this brief post, I wish to focus on a principal aspect of the Supreme Court’s judgment: the concept of deference.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Ms Shamima Begum was born and raised in the UK. She was a British citizen at birth and at age 15 she travelled to Syria with two friends and soon afterwards she married an ISIS fighter and is currently detained in poor conditions in the Al-Roj camp run by the Syrian Democratic Forces. She now wishes to return home to the UK to have a fair and effective appeal. She was deprived of her British citizenship on 19 February 2019 because the SSHD believed that her return would present a risk to national security. She applied for leave to enter (LTE) the UK so that she could pursue an appeal against the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the only way Ms Begum, can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the UK to pursue her appeal. King, Flaux and Singh LJJ found that fairness and justice must – on the facts of her case – outweigh any national security concerns. But in a twist of fate, the Supreme Court unanimously held in favour of the SSHD and found that the right to a fair hearing does not trump everything else, such as the public’s safety. The court took the view that if a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. Therefore, her deprivation appeal should be stayed until she can play an effective part in it without compromising the public’s safety.’
EIN Blog, 7th March 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Since 2019 when Shamima Begum was found in a camp in north Syria, her hopes of returning to the UK have ebbed and flowed (see here and here). Stripped of her British citizenship, she brought three sets of legal proceedings. Last week, after a ruling by the Supreme Court, her hopes receded once more. The Home Secretary was entitled to refuse her entry to the UK to pursue her appeal against the loss of citizenship, the Court ruled. So, Ms Begum’s appeal has been stayed, pending some change in her circumstances which will enable her to participate in a hearing – albeit from outside the UK.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st March 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2021