Social media is predictably swamped by the usual well-heeled, left-wheeled liberal rights activists decrying the major changes to terrorism laws introduced by Justice Secretary Robert Buckland this morning.
The new Counter Terrorism and Sentencing Bill entering Parliament today delivers swingeing changes to the sentencing, risk assessment and supervision of this countries violent extremists. Fatal defects in the system had become all too apparent in two acts of jihadi terrorism that straddled last Christmas. The murderous rampage of Usman Khan, who killed two young people involved in an educational charity supporting him when on licence from prison, was followed by Sudesh Amman’s dramatic assault. His attack on shoppers in Streatham after authorities were forced to release him from prison while still a danger to others prompted emergency legislation to stop the imminent automatic release of other terrorist offenders.
The public outrage caused by these two attacks has been muffled by the pandemic. It is clear however that Buckland and his team have been hard at work trying to convince those of us who aren’t academic jurists that our dogs breakfast of a sentencing framework could be reformed to better tackle the enduring threat of crimes inspired by ideology. Public protection is back in vogue.
The most serious terrorist offenders will serve a minimum of 14 years in custody and up to 25 years on licence – over three times the current maximum for community supervision of high risk prisoners. This matters. People must have confidence in a criminal justice system that is on their side to incapacitate those who attack them in the name of a religion or political belief for a very long time. Moreover, most of the evidence we have on these types of offenders suggests that long term support and supervision after release will be required to help those who wish to recant hateful ideologies – and not relapse. Other new provisions now mean that those who cannot or will not surrender extremely hateful and dangerous beliefs can effectively be detained indefinitely.
The Parole Board is going to have some of their responsibilities for deciding on whether and when a terrorist offender is fit for release removed. The new proposals say that all serious terrorist offenders sentenced where the maximum jail term is life will serve their full sentence and then be subject to a mandatory ten years of probation supervision on release. This supervision will now include revamped restrictions on location, movement, communication and association for dangerous offenders in the community called Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMS). TPIMS are watered down versions of ‘Control Orders’ brought in months before the London 7/7 terrorist atrocity in 2005. They have been little used in the meantime and in any case subject to relentless opposition from activist groups that oppose terrorist legislation and advocate for those imprisoned by it. New rules will make these restrictions stronger, subject to a lower threshold for proof they are needed and if necessary be extended beyond the current two year limit to indefinitely.
While these proposals might sound draconian they are unlikely to trouble voters just starting to emerge from an extended period of coronavirus house arrest. Similarly, the public who live outside Twitter or the university senior common room are likely to look favourably on planned increases for maximum sentences for supporting or being part of a proscribed terrorist organisation from ten to 14 years.
There are a host of other measures in this alphabet soup of new sentences and restrictions. There is new money and a commitment to invest in wearable technology to assist with controlling those who pose a risk. These headline-grabbing initiatives will prove palatable to ordinary people who are often bewildered by the perception that the criminal justice system boss class have a tendency to regard violent extremists as victims rather than perpetrators. They may well be both. But the bodies remain. Buckland and Priti Patel have both adopted a populist stance they know will resonate with voters who demand better protection. They have moved to fix a system so profoundly broken that in January it was forced to release an offender still determined to kill even when man-marked by armed police officers. It’s definitely smart politics. But is it smart national security?
There are a number of flies in the balm. It is right that the Government have signalled an extension of the review of the Prevent strategy in this announcement. The best way to stop tomorrow’s violent extremist is to prevent them getting on that dismal conveyor belt to martyrdom in the first place. However a truly effective prevention strategy requires a ‘whole of society’ approach that must bring communities that harbour terrorists to the fore. The current strategy is too focussed on intervention with individuals. We also need to ask and answer difficult big questions about how the institutions and structures that socialise and civilise people in this country are failing to prevent the emergence of alienated and disaffected youngsters with an appetite to kill for their beliefs.
More places in probation hostels and approved premises for released terrorist offenders is also not exactly a Rolls Royce response to the very small number of released terrorists who would be better off managed in wholly separate secure digs, debriefed and monitored by police and psychiatrists as opposed to overworked probation officers.
Crucially, the imposition of more severe jail terms for terrorist acts, welcome as they are, will not on its own keep us safer if we don’t do something to break the hold of the extremist mindset while such offenders are detained. It’s no good boasting about the (doubtful) abilities of our harried and battered Prison Service to spot dangerous extremism when it patently does not have the capability to respond to it with interventions that work.
I’m not convinced that extra time in custody alone would have changed the homicidal determination of London Bridge attacker Usman Khan one jot. His participation in the prisons ‘Healthy Identity Intervention’ programme certainly didn’t. We must assertively engage and challenge violent extremists from day one in custody where we have the best chance of reducing their dangerousness and supporting a better identity to emerge. We must tailor the response to the individual offenders extremist pathology, including theological deformities; not ‘sheep dip’ generic solutions.
After all, national security doesn’t stop at the prison gates. There are British citizens behind those high walls as well – prisoners and staff – who need to be protected from terrorists who might regard them as an easy target for retribution against extended sentences. A terrorist attack on officers in a high security prison in January by convicted jihadis in January came within seconds and inches of a fatal incident. This is not a fanciful scenario. The Justice Secretary has more to do to convince front line staff that their senior management have the appetite and the capability to manage an influx of prisoners caught up in an extended range of terrorist sentences.
Violent extremism has the power to disfigure society and rob people of their personal security. This Counter Terrorism bill will face parliamentary scrutiny and rightly so. The deprivation of liberty is the strongest power we have to punish the wicked and protect the vulnerable. We must use it wisely. We actually can arrest ourselves out of this problem but only if we equip our prisons to be places with the time, space and tools to challenge the scourge of ideologically motivated offending. And only if the supply of new recruits is stopped at source. Two cheers, Mr Buckland. More to do.
Comments