Terrorists ‘could be freed without conditions’ under sentencing plans

From Iraq to the streets of London, it is naive to think that the danger of terrorism is falling

Charles Hymas, Hayley Dixon

Jamie Johnson

TERRORISTS might have to be freed without licence conditions under the Government’s new sentencing plans, its adviser on terror laws has warned.

Jonathan Hall, an independent adviser on terrorism legislation, said any attempt to impose conditions on terrorists released after they had served their full sentences would “almost certainly be unlawful”. It means the Ministry of Justice will have to consider alternative counter-terror orders that could prove expensive and are open to legal challenge, senior lawyers warned.

Boris Johnson has refused to rule out suspending the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to keep convicted terrorists behind bars.

Mr Hall’s assessment follows Government

plans to end the automatic early release of all prisoners convicted of terrorist offences including those already jailed.

Rather than being released halfway through their sentences, terrorists will face a review by a specialist parole board at the two-thirds point to decide if they remain a danger to the public. Those judged a risk will remain in jail for the rest of their sentence.

The MOJ aims to introduce a Bill enacting the changes this week and wants it approved by Parliament by the end of next week.

Mr Hall said the changes could create a “cliff edge” where it was unable to impose licence conditions on a terrorist about to be freed. He said: “If the parole board decides not to release the individual before the expiry of their sentence, will the Government be content for that individual to be at liberty without any licence or will it also add an additional licence period?”

If it added a licence period which was breached, requiring a recall to prison, “that would almost certainly be unlawful because it would be an obvious increase to the penalty,” he said.

Robert Buckland, the Justice Secretary, is considering a lighter-touch version of TPIMS, court-ordered restrictions on terror suspects’ travel, overnight residence, communications and contacts.

Home Office figures, however, show TPIMS can cost £200,000 a year per suspect and Lord Pannick, one of Britain’s leading human rights lawyers, said they would be open to challenge.

“In principle, it’s lawful to impose TPIMS but the individual concerned is entitled to some form of judicial process to challenge the imposition of such restrictions,” he said.

Lord Pannick, however, said the Government’s plans to retrospectively abolish early release for jailed terrorists were “in my view lawful.”

If a challenge were successful, the Government could apply for an ECHR “derogation” on the basis that it was a “time of emergency” that represented a “threat to the life of the nation”.

Asked if the Government would derogate from the ECHR, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “We are going to ensure that we will bring forward the necessary legislation to protect the public.”

Britain has been waging a war against Islamist extremists for the better part of two decades. Yet, to judge by the latest terrorist attack to take place in broad daylight on a British street, those responsible for tackling Islamist extremism are still struggling to devise an effective formula for dealing with would-be jihadis.

For all the talk we have heard from successive prime ministers, from Tony Blair to Theresa May, about getting tough with those responsible for plotting and carrying out acts of Islamist-inspired terrorism, the fact that London has just suffered its second attack by a convicted terrorist in two months suggests that we are a long way from having measures in place to prevent further carnage.

True, it is hard to know for sure whether someone who has previously been convicted of terrorism is intent on committing further crimes after being released from prison or is seriously interested in mending their ways. That certainly appeared to be the case with Usman Khan, who managed to persuade British officials he was interested in ditching his allegiance to militant Islam, only to launch a frenzied attack on London Bridge last November, killing two people and stabbing three others before he was shot dead by police marksmen.

There were no such reservations in the case of Sudesh Amman, who, following his release from Belmarsh prison at the end of last month, was deemed to be so dangerous that his movements were closely monitored by a specialist counter-terrorism police unit.

Amman, who was jailed for three years and four months at the Old Bailey in November 2018, after pleading guilty to numerous terrorist offences, was released after serving just half of his sentence, even though he did not display the slightest hint of remorse for his crimes.

It was for this reason, and the fact that he remained utterly committed to the Islamist cause, that Amman was placed under surveillance from the moment he was released. But not even this sensible precaution could prevent Amman from attacking two innocent bystanders in Streatham, south London, on Sunday before, like Khan before him, he was shot dead by police marksmen.

The ease with which committed terrorists like Khan and Amman have been able to play the system in such a way that they have been able to go on to commit more serious acts of terrorism than those that led to their incarceration raises serious questions about its effectiveness.

Richard Walton, the former head of counter terrorism at the Metropolitan Police, says Britain is “soft” in its approach to hardened terrorists, while Boris Johnson says he has “come to the end of my patience” when it comes to their early release.

Robert Buckland, the Justice Secretary, has responded by introducing emergency legislation to block the automatic release of terrorist offenders after serving half their sentences, which is a welcome step in the right direction.

Yet, at a time when organisations such as Al-qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) show no sign of ending their murderous assaults against the West, the Government needs to harden further its response to those deemed to pose an active threat to national security.

Despite the recent success coalition forces from the US, Britain and other Western countries have enjoyed in defeating the likes of Isil in Syria and Iraq, all the indications are that the threat remains as potent as ever as Isil and its associates seek to take advantage of political instability in the Middle East to regroup.

In Iraq, Isil fighters are said to be forming new terror cells, while Islamist militants in Libya are eyeing opportunities to exploit the country’s descent into full-scale civil war to their advantage.

Therefore, rather than viewing the threat as being in decline, which seems to be the view of many of those responsible for overseeing Britain’s approach to Islamistinspired extremism, the Government needs to go much further than adjusting the parole terms of terrorists. There is a long established principle in relation to those convicted of other serious offences, such as murder, that they must admit their guilt, as well as displaying genuine remorse, before they are considered suitable for release.

And officials need to be far less naive when it comes to assessing those who claim to be interested in ending their association with extremism by signing up for deradicalisation programmes.

From the formation of Al-qaeda onwards, Islamist militants have been taught to comply with the judicial systems of Western countries with the aim of ultimately gaining their freedom and being able to return to the battlefield.

And, as we have learnt to our cost from the recent cases involving Khan and Amman, truly committed Islamist terrorists remain a threat even after they have been brought to justice.

read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion