Post Brexit will it be the UK or the EU’s security that will be the weaker?

barnier

In June 2018 Brexit negotiations were seeming to make slow progress and at an address to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier threw a cat among the pigeons  by stating post Brexit the UK will be locked out of the EU’s policing and security databases, lose access to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and no longer have a role in managing agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Barnier added that security cooperation is based on trust, a trust that is founded on an ecosystem and that cooperation between the UK and EU on crime and security would be conditional on the UK remaining subject to the European Court of Human Rights. In relation to the latter, Barnier should have no concerns as there are no moves in the short term for the UK to leave the Council of Europe and thereby withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, a document that in 1953 was written primarily by British lawyers!

If Barnier’s threat come to fruition what the UK will lose includes:

  1. Access to the Prum Treaty on the exchange of DNA profiles;
  2. Access to the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II);
  3. Europol’s other databases related to terrorist and criminal activity;
  4. Use of the EAW.

At the EU Summit in Brussels on the 29th June 2018 the UK’s Prime Minister, Theresa May warned the EU that should the UK be frozen out of cooperation on security and criminal activity related to serious crime this would put not just the UK but citizens in the other 27 EU Member States at risk. This raises the question if the UK is denied access to important databases will it compromise UK security? In essence I do not think it will, but it could slow down progress in investigations into terrorism and serious crime.

map of europe

Firstly I think it is totally wrong of Barnier and his team to even to contemplate having the issue of cooperation related to terrorism and security on Brexit negotiations’ agenda. The key issues in those negotiations should focus on freedom of movement of trade and persons, trade and customs tariffs and so on, not security. Of course by leaving the EU both the UK and the EU should have separate negotiations on issues related to cooperation on terrorism and serious crime, but one where negotiations are carried out with a great desire  to reach an agreement without any politicking that benefits citizens in the whole of Europe, not just those in the EU. There appears to be an arrogance with the EU in thinking of itself as Europe, but there are many European nations that are not in the EU and have no intention of doing so. Of course post Brexit the UK will be come a third country (that is one not in the EU), but please note that also post Brexit the UK will still be a European state! As such intelligence sharing and cooperation between the UK and EU Member States will still be important. Terrorists and criminals to not take into account national state borders when carrying out their activity. Both terrorist acts and serious crime like the trafficking of persons, drugs and firearms have a devastating affect on its victims. In short this is simply about nothing more than keep all European citizens safe be they in or out of the EU.

In saying this the non-EU states of Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland have limited access to EU terrorism and criminal databases through the Schengen Aquis, so why can’t the UK have the same access? It might be the EU is taking  a hard line stance against the UK because the UK does not want the Court of Justice of the European Union to have any form of governance over UK law. It could also be because post-Lisbon Treaty 2009 no EU Member State has wanted to leave the EU with its many unelected bureaucratic bodies (hence the democratic deficit that has been seen with the EU). As such it can be argued that the likes of Barnier is using Brexit and its hard line stance with the UK as a lesson to other EU Member States should they wish to leave the EU in the future. At the time of writing my recent travels has revealed how widespread is the desire of many citizens in EU Member States for their home state to leave the EU. In part this could be down to how the EU has developed from the European Economic Community based solely on trade to a quasi-federalist state post Treaty of Union and Treaty of Lisbon.

If asked I see the hard line Barnier is adopting would more detrimental to the EU and the citizens in its remaining Member States than the UK. The UK has what is termed a ‘gold standard’ in relation to intelligence gathering and sharing among its security services and the police and it is a model that is constantly developing and improving. GCHQ’s Director, Jeremy Fielding recently came out saying that in 2017 GCHQ and the UK played a critical role in foiling a least four attacks on mainland Europe. Fielding’s statement came out following Barnier’s threats and it is very rare for a security service director or senior police officers to feel the need to come out and get involved in a political issue. The UK’s intelligence model is one that other EU Member States want to emulate. Also the UK is part of the Five Eyes, which is an intelligence sharing agreement between the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and as such currently vital intelligence can be rapidly fed in to the EU systems by the UK, something the EU would lose if Barnier’s threats are realised. The EU should be grateful to the UK as Europol’s former director, Sir Rob Wainwright, who left the post earlier this year, shook up Europol by introducing and improving its intelligence and cooperation structures, all based on the UK’s model. He is currently assisting the UK’s Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee on the status of Brexit negotiations on security and the options available for future policing and security cooperation between the UK and the EU.  In relation to EAW’s, there is a possibility that the UK and the EU can negotiate a similar extradition procedure that is as rapid as the EAW because the use of EAW’s has been a two-way process as just as many EAW’s have been carried out by UK policing agencies on behalf of Member States as the UK has made requests. I am confident that as such the UK and the EU can agree on a form of swift extradition. This is important as many EU Member States’ constitutions prohibit extradition of its citizens to third countries, for example Germany.

While in my opinion it is wrong for the EU to use security and serious crime as a political football I am confident pressure will be put on the EU by the Member States and its security services and policing agencies to maintain close cooperation with the UK. As I said the UK is not leaving Europe, it is leaving the EU and the EU is not Europe. Should the EU maintain a hard line on these issues I think the biggest loser with be the citizens of the remaining 27 member States.

Sputnik logo

I discuss these issues in greater detail in my interview with Radio Sputnik

 

Does the UK need to introduce more anti-terrorism powers to its police and security services?

CONTEST 1

 

On the 22nd April a 120 page draft report of the UK Government’s new terror strategy was passed onto journalists at the Sunday Times that in essence contains proposed amendments to the UK’s anti-terrorism policy CONTEST and a proposed counter-terrorism Bill.

 

In relation to the Bill, the proposals revealed include:

 

1.       People convicted of terrorism offences receive longer sentences;

2.       Police and security services to be given the power to warn government departments, Scottish and Welsh politicians and local authorities of individuals they consider suspicious, even before they have been placed on the MI5 watch list.

 

Other proposals include:

 

1.       Increased security at sporting events and concerts;

2.       Focus on detecting ‘British jihadi’ trying to get work at airports;

3.       Improve the detections of terrorist activity involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive material.

 

In relation to the Prevent strand of CONTEST, which is the pre-criminal strategy to help those who are vulnerable to being drawn towards terrorism, the proposals call for more focus on communities where the threat form terrorism and radicalisation is the highest. The report says the existing Prevent strategy has been divisive, with the UK’s Muslim community saying they have been unfairly singled out.

MI5 logo

 

The potential problems the UK government face in successfully introducing these proposals includes giving the police and security services the power to warn other government departments of individuals they consider suspicious. In May 2017 it was reported that over 3,500 potential terrorists are being monitored. It will be interesting when the details are published how the UK Government is going to support the police and the security services in carrying out this task. It is proposed to increase the number of staff in the security services by 1,900 by 2020. When this was first proposed, this was to help the services deal with their current workload. Since 2010 the austerity cuts on the police has seen the number of officers in England and Wales reduced by 21,000. The policing role that has suffered the most from these cuts is neighbourhood policing (community policing), which is a key role in acting as a conduit between the public and the police, and that includes receiving information and intelligence from the community. While there has been no reduction in counter-terrorism policing, there has not been an increase in its resources either as their workload increases. Although 13 major terrorist attacks were prevented in the UK since March 2017, as seen in the 2017 attacks that were successful, it is difficult to monitor all the intelligence systems, so to meet these proposals there will have to be an increase in police staffing and funding.

prevent logo

 

The second issue worth considering is the focusing on communities where the threat of terrorism and radicalisation is highest. Although the report acknowledges the existing Prevent strategy has been divisive, something I have pointed out in the past, this is because when it was introduced, it focused solely on the violent Islamist narrative. Since 2011, the strategy considers all forms of extremism, a message that has not successfully been communicated by the Home Office. Here is the issue regarding this proposal, who are these communities? If the language used over the last few months by the current Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, is taken into consideration it appears the communities she is referring to are the Muslim communities. Figures released by the Home Office in March 2018 reveal that out of the 6,093 referred to prevent over a third of those referrals were as a result of far right concerns. Let us not forget that the UK has witnessed a number of attacks carried out under the influence of the far right narrative that have resulted in murder, including the assassination of a British MP in June 2016 by Thomas Mair (something the Islamists have not carried out). Which communities will be monitored in relation to far right terrorism?

 

UK police and security services already have some of the widest powers under terrorism related legislation among the Western states, so it is questionable if further powers are needed. In relation to Prevent, it does need re-marketing. While not perfect, the strategy does have many successes and is a vital strand of CONTEST that requires as much support as possible both in resources and marketing. I know that the Home Office is looking to introduce a separate Prevent website that is more user friendly and interactive. With all the recent good work done in Prevent, it is important that these proposals do not return to focusing solely on the UK’s Muslim communities thereby making them suspect communities. All forms of extremism are potentially dangerous and the community that should work together is the whole of UK society, not just one or two minority communities.

Sputnik logo

 

I discussed this in more details on my interview with Sputnik Radio, which you can listen to on the link

 

Terrorist Incident in Trebes France

Trebes

In relation to Islamist inspired terrorist attacks it has been relatively quiet in Europe over the past few months but once more France has suffered another tragic attack where it is reported that three people have been killed.

The gunman, who has not been named but is believed to be a Moroccan, has been shot and killed by the French police. The incident started in Carcassone where the gunman hijacked a car killing the passenger and injuring the driver. En route to the supermarket in Trebes he shot a wounded a police officer who was jogging. Reported to be heavily armed, the gunman entered the supermarket in Trebes taking staff and shoppers hostage.

salah abdeslam

It is reported that the gunman had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam who was involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks and who was recently convicted of terrorist offences linked to those attacks. Although more information has yet to be released, it does appear that once more we have witnessed another tragic act of terrorism committed by a person who has been inspired by the Islamist narrative of the group Islamic State rather than acting under direct orders of the group. While Islamic State have lost control of key territory in Syria/Iraq and Libya, this incident reveals how potent the narrative of Islamic State still is in influencing the vulnerable and inspiring people to carry out acts of violence in the group’s name. Their media activities via electronic communications has not decreased and this attack should put us all on notice of the potential threat Islamist groups still pose to Western states’ security.

ACT Campaign

We can all play our part by passing information of activity we think is suspicious to the police and in the UK this is part of the current ACT  Campaign Action Counters Terrorism) where if you are suspicious where you can either call 0800 789 321 or compete an online form.

radio scotland logo

I will be discussing this incident in more detail on BBC Radio Scotland just after 6pm (GMT) today.

‘Terrorism: Law & Policy’ published today

My terrorism book cover

My new book ‘Terrorism: Law & Policy’ is published today. It is a comparative socio-legal analysis on terrorism law and policy in Australia, Canada, European Union, the UK and the US. The main topics it covers are:

  1. Current terrorist threat that looks at various groups operating globally;
  2. The various legal definitions of terrorism;
  3. The various statutory preventative measures states have introduced related to terrorist activity;
  4. Intelligence gathering and exchange;
  5. Surveillance of electronic communications balancing the needs of national security with protecting personal rights to privacy and data protection;
  6. Financing of terrorism;
  7. Prevent strategies;
  8. Handling terrorist informants

The book can be obtained from Routledge’s website or other sties like Amazon

 

 

Freedom of Expression Allows a Person to Speak Offensively: If You Are Easily Offended Don’t Read This!

Center_Parcs logoDaily Mail logo

 

 

 

In the UK the holiday company Center Parcs have stopped advertising in the UK newspaper, The Daily Mail. The decision was made following a comment article by one of the newspaper’s columnists, Richard Littlejohn who was critical of a married gay couple (one partner of whom is the UK’s diving athlete Tom Daly) announcing they were expecting a child. In the article Littlejohn claims that children benefit most from being raised by a man and a woman. In making this decision, Center Parcs were responding to a complaint from a person who tweeted in effect that by advertising in the Daily Mail Center Parcs was supporting homophobia. Closely following this decision, London’s Southbank Centre announced it would no longer be advertising in the Daily Mail as the newspaper’s values were not compatible with those of the Southbank Centre.

ECHR logous bill of rights
There has been a movement where people who are offended by comment’s not in line with their own and express this on the likes of social media is gathering increasing influence on what and what cannot be said, printed or, more importantly, what values and beliefs a person can hold in society. In a liberal democracy such moves are dangerously impinging on a very important right, the right to freedom of expression. In most European countries this is governed by article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and article 11 European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. In the US this right is enshrined in the first amendment of the 1791 Bill of Rights and in Canada under section 2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1980 Australia incorporated the United Nations’ international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR) which was scheduled in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Article 19 ICCPR states everyone has the right to freedom of expression, adding the right includes freedom to speak, receive and impart information of all kinds.
This is not a carte blanche right to say whatever you want. For example article 10 ECHR is a qualified right where the state can interfere with that right when it is prescribed in and law and necessary in a democratic society when it is:

1. in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
2. for the prevention of disorder or crime;
3. for the protection of health or morals;
4. for the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
5. for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or,
6. for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

To put some context into what is acceptable in relation to freedom of expression Lord Justice Sedley said in the UK case Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:

‘Freedom of speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.’ ([My emphasis]

In essence, provided what a person says does not provoke violence, if it offends you it does not violate the right to freedom of expression. Like many others I am offended by comments such as those espoused by Islamist groups like Islamic State or Al Qaeda or those espoused by extreme far right groups, views expressed by certain politicians and pressure groups. Provided that comments I see as offensive do not glorify or provoke violence I accept them as being part of the rich tapestry that creates a liberal democracy and as such I would always advocate it is important for them to have their right to expression and views. Today I notice that from politicians to senior managers of public and private companies they are guarded in what they say for fear of offending the easily offended. Another problem for me is how the views of the easily offended is represented in various social media sites. I have noticed for example in fear of offending Twitter followers or Facebook friends there is a degree of acquiescing to others’ views.

Nick griffinon question time

In 2009 the far right political party, the British National Party’s leader Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC’s Question Time programme, There was an outrage that the BBC was allowing this due to the (and I quote Sedley LJ) the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative views held by Griffin and his party. In my view I was pleased the BBC allowed this as I knew that on this type of programme he would make a fool of himself and people would see Griffin for the bigoted racist he is. Griffin did get tied up in knots resulting in his views becoming incomprehensible and basically a laughing stock. It could be argued this was the start of the demise of the BNP. There are times to let people have their say and in doing so it allows people to see right through their argument, which is what happened on this occasion.

richard-littlejohnstop fundign hate logo

 

What did Littlejohn say in his Daily Mail column that has caused Center Parcs and the Southbank Centre to withdraw their adverts in the newspaper, along with the pressure group Stop Funding Hate to regularly tweet the names of companies that advertise in the Daily Mail? In the article Littlejohn said he supported civil partnerships, and would prefer a child to be fostered by loving gay couples rather than be condemned to rot in state-run institutions. He added, ‘That said, and despite the fact that countless single parents do a fantastic job, I still cling to the belief that children benefit most from being brought up by a man and a woman’. While I disagree with the latter part of this comment, one can see he is trying to balance his view and in no way is he provoking violence.

Personally I do not agree with the journalistic content of the Daily Mail. For many years it has always run contentious articles and its slant on its news reports has been equally contentious. This is a polite way of saying I get offended by what is regularly reported in the Daily Mail and I disagree with a lot of its commentary. By preventing companies from advertising in the Daily Mail is this in effect saying that Daily Mail readers are prohibited from taking various services or purchasing certain goods, such as in this case is Center Parcs saying that Daily Mail readers are not welcome at its venues? Even the newspaper I regularly read, I do so with a questioning mind as to its sources and reliability in reporting due to the bias held by the editor and the newspaper’s proprietors. In a liberal democracy it is important to have a free press and in doing so that means accepting that the Daily Mail has a right to exist and publish its views just like other newspapers, but you don’t have to buy it or visit their website. I suggest that when appropriate stop being so easily offended and laugh at some of the outlandish and ludicrous reporting in the likes of the Daily Mail.

Cruz, Florida Shooting and the Far Right: How long before gun control and white supremacist groups are controlled?

Nikolas cuz

Nikola Cruz, a 19 year old, has been charged with the murder of 17 people who it is alleged Cruz shot at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
This incident raises two important issues. One relates to US gun control as once more we have witnessed another massacre of innocent people, which from the view of this UK citizen it is incomprehensible as to why the US has not introduced legislation bringing in stricter and tighter conditions over gun ownership and its use. Clearly the influence of the US’ National Rifle Association must be strong on many US politicians, who from my perspective appear to see votes more important than their constituents’ lives. A reliance on the second amendment of the 1791 Bill of Rights that states, ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’ in 2018 seems a rather outdated constitutional right. Written at a time when the US did not have a standing army, as the US now has one of the world’s most powerful military this right seems to be obsolete. This is not the main focus of this blog, it is a second issue that this murder raises regarding Cruz’s alleged association with the far right, in particular the group Republic of Florida (RoF). If proved it demonstrates how influential these groups are in inspiring individuals to carry out acts of murder and violence in their name be they direct to by that group or not.

republic of florida flag

A white supremacist group, RoF has claimed that Cruz was associated with them. This is an allegation that is currently being investigated and has yet to be confirmed. That said over the last few years globally there has been a rise in murder and violent acts carried by individuals influenced by the far right narrative. This has included the killing of six people at a mosque in Quebec, Canada in January 2017 by Alexandre Bissonnette. In the UK examples include the conviction of a member of the now proscribed group National Action, Zak Davies for attempt murder, Thomas Mair for the murder of UK MP Jo Cox and more recently Darren Osborne for the murder and injury to Muslim worshippers outside a mosque in Finsbury Park, London. In 2017 the US witnessed the killing of Heather Heyer who was protesting against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia where it is alleged that James Field (who allegedly has Nazi sympathies) drove into the protestors killing Heather Heyer and injuring 35 others.

us bill of rights

The question is if other states should follow the UK’s lead and start proscribing certain far right groups as terrorist organisations? In raising this question concerns will be expressed as to how this would be seen as a step limiting certain rights. In Europe these are mainly governed by articles 11, freedom of expression and article 12, freedom of association under the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (articles 10 and 11 respectively under the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights). In the US these rights come under amendment 1 of the 1791 Bill of Rights. In a democracy it is important that views can be expressed freely and to associate with whoever we want to without fear of retribution from the state. As Sedley LJ said in the UK case Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:
‘Freedom of speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.’
The phrase that is important in this judgement is, ‘…provided it does not tend to provoke violence’. Note this is not to promote violence, just merely to provoke violence, that is merely to inspire someone to carry out violence.

antipodean resistance
It can be argued that the RoF (formed in 2014) promotes violence. Under the RoF’s ten codes, code 3 promotes a willingness to ‘wage battle’ by encouraging its followers to maintain a level of fitness saying, ‘You cannot fight if you are tired and weak’. Code 7 promotes its followers to be part of an organised militia. RoF has contact and associations with other white supremacist groups including Atomwaffen. Atomwaffen openly describes itself as a neo-Nazi group and as seen on their website the group provokes violence in achieving their aims. In Canada a recent study revealed that there are approximately 100 extreme far right groups active in Canada including Soldiers of Odin, the Alt-Right Group Heritage Front, Blood and Honour and based in Quebec, La Meute (translated as ‘Wolf Pack’), who between 1985 to 2014 were responsible for more than 120 violent incidents. In Australia a number of far right groups exist including Aryan Nation, Combat 18, National Democratic Party for Australia, Soldiers of Odin and United Patriots Front. Formed in late 2016 one of the more recent extreme far right groups to emerge in Australia is Antipodean Resistance. Antipodean Resistance is also openly a neo-Nazi group that appears to have based itself on the UK group National Action. The language and imagery used between Antipodean Resistance, National Action and groups like Atomwaffen are identical.
Earlier this week the UK’s Home Secretary, Amber Rudd revealed that she is encouraging internet service providers to use software that blocks Islamist extremist content. While the Islamist narrative is equally as vile as that of the far right, perhaps globally politicians should look at encouraging companies to use software that also blocks far right extremist content. Maybe other states should go further and proscribe those far right groups that are openly provoking violence. In doing so, this would give the police much wider powers and offences in which to deal effectively with the threat far right groups are posing to the security of citizens in many states. If it is later evidenced that Cruz had connections with RoF surely this is also evidence that certain far right groups should be prevented from carrying out their activities that is attractive to the disenchanted in society and, those like Cruz, vulnerable to being drawn towards violent activity. Rightly, if these were Islamist inspired groups, there would be more vociferous calls from politicians and the public for something to be done. It should be the same for far right groups that promote or merely provoke violence too.

My terrorism book cover

I discuss many of these issues in my forthcoming book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’ that is being published by Routledge in March 2018.

Islamic State’s Kotey and Elsheikh Captured in Syria: How should the US deal with them?

Kotey & Elsheikh

Two UK citizens, Kotey and Elsheikh, were captured by US backed Kurdish forces (part of the Syrian Democratic Forces) in January 2018 and handed over to US Special Forces. Kotey and Elsheikh were part of Islamic State’s execution cell and worked with two other UK citizens, Emwazi (also known as Jihadi John)who was killed in a drone attack in Syria November 2015 and  Aine Davis, who was convicted of terrorism offences in as Turkish criminal court in May 2017.

emwaziIS flag

The execution cell was responsible for torturing and killing its captives, including captives from Europe and the US, notably killing David Haines and Alan Henning from the UK and James Foley, Alan Sotloff and Peter Kessig from the US. It is reported that Kotey and Elsheikh allegedly took part in mock executions, waterboarding and crucifixions of their captives as well as being party to the killing that took place.

GTMO

The question is how should they be dealt with? Effectively being in US custody they could be transferred to the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, but this would not be a positive move due to the Centre’s reputation. If the US does this it could be counterproductive and be used as propaganda by Islamic State and other Islamist inspired groups to show that there is one rule for US citizens and one for Muslims from other states. This can be a powerful recruitment tool.

The best move the US can make is to transfer them to the US to face trial in a criminal court for the murder of the US citizens killed by Islamic State’s execution cell. It would still be a terrorist trial as  the alleged motive behind their actions would be the Islamist cause, which is a terrorist cause. Many states like the US, the UK, Canada and Australia have legally defined terrorism to include terrorism in states around the world. Even if no evidence can be found that either Kotey or Elsheikh actually killed the captives, their involvement with Emwazi who did will through the criminal law principle of joint criminal enterprise be sufficient to try them for murder.

NYC_-_New_York_County_Supreme_Courthouse

By having a potential criminal trial will not just ensure due process takes palace, it will demonstrate to the world that justice is being done as Kotey and Elsheikh’s rights will be carried out. They will have access to qualified defence lawyer, have trial by jury and in the US criminal trials they have very strict rules in appointing jurors to ensure a fair trial. Also, in a criminal trial Kotey and Elsheikh will have the opportunity to present their evidence. In my opinion this would be the preferred approach in dealing with these two men.

Should they go to Guantanamo Bay the UK government should take steps to extradite Kotey and Elsheikh to the UK to face trial for the murder of David Haines and Alan Henning. One factor involved in this process would be the US government, in particular the current US President. Donal Trump has taken a strong stance against Islamist inspired terrorism, both in the US and abroad. He has expressed strident views on this issue, especially via his personal Twitter account. This included retweeting three tweets made by the extreme far right group Britain First. This did cause a diplomatic incident between the US and the UK, but President Trump has since states that he had no idea who the group were when he retweeted their tweets.

If President Trump wants to demonstrate to the world how the US deals with terrorists, having a criminal trial will show how rights in western states’ democracies apply to all by being dealt with fairly and equitably. As Lord Justice Gordon Hewart said in R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy (1924), ‘Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done’.

My terrorism book cover

I discuss the legal issues contained in this blog in more detail in my book ‘Terrorism: Law & Policy’ being published by Routledge in March 2018.

bbc news logo

I discuss this news story and the legal issues in my interview with BBC News Channel.