Section 1 of UK Terrorism Act recasts protest as terrorism
This digest was compiled by AI from multiple sources — links to the originals are below.
Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in Britain defines terrorism to include politically motivated damage to property, a definition far broader than the common understanding. The Supreme Court and David Anderson QC, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, have criticized the provision as “very far-reaching” and “remarkably broad – absurdly so in some cases”. Proscription is a separate political decision; in 2021 Home Secretary Priti Patel designated all of Hamas, including its political wing, as terrorist.
Key Facts
- Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows politically motivated damage to property to constitute terrorism when carried out for a political, religious, racial or ideological purpose and intended to influence the government or intimidate the public.
- The Supreme Court later described Section 1's definition of terrorism as “very far-reaching”.
- In a 2012 report, David Anderson QC wrote that current law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be turned into terrorists by virtue of their participation in a lawful armed conflict, however odious the regime they have attacked.
- In his 2014 Terrorism Report, Anderson warned that rendering people subject to terrorism laws whom no sensible person would think of as terrorists risks destroying the trust upon which those special powers depend.
- Britain proscribed Hamas's military wing in 2001 and in 2021 Home Secretary Priti Patel extended proscription to Hamas in its entirety, including its political wing, deeming the previous distinction “artificial”.
The Legal Definition
Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 permits politically motivated damage to property to be treated as terrorism when intended to influence the government or intimidate the public. When firearms or explosives are involved, the requirement of influencing government or intimidating the public does not apply. Labour MP Alan Simpson warned during the 1999 parliamentary debate that the provision would transform the relationship between civil protest movements and elected Parliaments. The Supreme Court later described Section 1's definition as “very far-reaching”. David Anderson QC, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, called it “remarkably broad – absurdly so in some cases”.
Anderson's 2012 and 2014 Reports
In his 2012 report, Anderson observed that current law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be turned into terrorists by virtue of their participation in a lawful armed conflict. He added that this applies however odious the regime which they have attacked. In his 2014 Terrorism Report, Anderson warned that rendering people subject to terrorism laws whom no sensible person would think of as terrorists risks destroying the trust on which special powers depend.
Proscription Decisions
Proscription is a separate decision from the legal definition; the government chooses which organisations to ban, making membership and inviting support for them criminal offences. The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is proscribed in Britain, while its Syrian offshoot, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), is not because PYD-led forces became Western allies in the fight against ISIS. Britain proscribed Hamas's military wing in 2001. In 2021, Home Secretary Priti Patel extended proscription to Hamas in its entirety, including its political wing, and called the previous distinction between the two “artificial”. As a result, many civilian members of Hamas who had never picked up a gun were now deemed terrorists alongside its fighters.
1 source
Section 1 of UK Terrorism Act recasts protest as terrorism
