Terrorism Act 2000 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Terrorism Act 2000 - Essay Example All the criticisms have been centered round the very basic issue of definition of the term 'terrorism'. This paper details some of the contradicting views on the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism has been exhaustively dealt with by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 20001. Under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 the term 'terrorism' is defined to include "any specified action, the use or threat of which is designed to influence any government or to intimidate the public in order to advance a political religious or ideological purpose" (James Hammerton)2. The use or threat of action which involves the use of firearms or explosives will be deemed to be terrorism whether it is designed to influence the government or not or to intimidate a section of the public. The definition as provided for in section 1 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 thus includes an action that satisfies result under subsection (2), intention under subsection (1) (b) and motivation under subsection (1) (c). However it has been specifically provided that where the action involves there is no relevance of the intention3. The major criticism against this exhaustive definition brought into force by the Terrorism Act 2000 is that it has the effect of making a serious assault on the civil liberties. This criticism is leveled on the ground that the definition covers even those who voice support for armed resistance against suppressive regimes and even those who organize mass faxing to register their protest against the government. The report from University of Essex describes the definition as too wide devoid of the clarity required for the criminal law.4 The same report points out that Amnesty International and the Parliamentary Joint Committee also have a similar view on the definition of the term 'terrorism'.5 It has been pointed out that the Terrorism Act, 2000 does not cite any specific offence of committing an act of terrorism, as has not been the case with the legislation in many other jurisdictions. Here in the case of Terrorism Act the tacit legal assumption is that the existing offences under any other criminal law would cover the terrorist attack under Terrorism Act. However this may give rise to a situation that the acts or conducts which are ancillary to the terrorist acts would be "criminalized in many situations in which analogous conduct ancillary to other criminal activity would not be". The following cases will clearly illustrate this point It is considered as an offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 to direct a terrorist organisation at any level. This act at a very low level may not be subjected to the wider scope of terrorist attack "It is an offence under section 38B of the 2000 Act, as inserted by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, for any person to fail to disclose as soon as reasonably practicable any information which he knows or believes might be of material