Transparency data

Counter-terrorism disruptive powers report 2023 (accessible)

Published 28 November 2024

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of His Majesty.

November 2024

Foreword

As Security Minister, my first duty is the protection of our country and its citizens. The ongoing counter-terrorism effort is a critical part of that mission.

The United Kingdom faces a terrorist threat that is constantly evolving, has domestic and international facets and is increasingly unpredictable, making detection and investigation harder.

All of this underlines why it is so crucial to ensure that our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies have all the necessary resources and tools to do their vital work. I will do everything possible to ensure that is the case.

We are fortunate to have so many outstanding professionals working day and night to keep us safe. They are deserving of our enduring thanks and respect.

While this report covers a period under the previous government, it highlights the continued need for a wide range of powers to protect the public.

Since the general election, the Home Secretary and I have been clear that the new government will relentlessly combat the threats we face – whether from terrorism, foreign states or any other source.

The defence of our national security is, and will always be, our top priority.

For me, and for everyone at our department, nothing will matter more.

Dan Jarvis MBE MP

Security Minister

1. Introduction

The priority of any government is keeping the British public safe and secure. Our world-leading counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, works to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence.

CONTEST outlines the government’s response to a terrorist threat which is now more diverse, dynamic and complex and sets out the transformational improvements being made to our counter-terrorism response to meet the key challenges of the current and future terrorist threat and sets these in the national security context. ^{[footnote 1]}

To counter terrorism and other national security threats, it is crucial that we have the necessary powers and that they are used appropriately and proportionately. This report includes data on the use of counter-terrorism disruptive powers in 2023. It explains their utility and outlines the legal frameworks that ensure they can only be used when necessary and proportionate, in accordance with the statutory functions of the relevant public authorities.

There are limitations concerning how much can be said publicly about the use of certain sensitive techniques. To go into too much detail may encourage terrorists to change their behaviour in an attempt to evade detection. However, it is important that the public are confident that the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to protect them and that these powers are used proportionately. The agencies rely on many members of the public to provide support to their work. If the public do not trust the police and security and intelligence agencies, that mistrust would result in a significant operational impact.

2. Terrorism arrests and outcomes

Conviction in a court is one of the most effective tools we have to stop terrorists. The government and operational partners are committed to pursuing convictions for terrorist offences where they have occurred. Terrorism-related arrests are made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), or the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) in circumstances where arresting officers require additional powers of detention or need to arrest a person suspected of terrorism-related activity without a warrant. Whether to arrest someone under PACE or TACT is an operational decision made by the police.

In the year ending 31 December 2023, 221 persons were arrested for terrorism-related activity, an increase of 32% from the 167 arrests in the previous year. ^{[footnote 2]} Of the 221 arrests, 81 (37%) resulted in a charge, and of those charged, 68 were considered to be terrorism related. Many of these cases are ongoing, so the number of charges resulting from the 221 arrests can be expected to rise over time. Of the 68 people charged with terrorism-related offences, 28 have been prosecuted, 36 are awaiting prosecution and 4 received another outcome. Of the 28 cases which have been tried, 27 led to individuals being convicted of an offence, all of which were terrorism-related offences. The final person prosecuted was found not guilty.

As of 31 December 2023, there were 244 persons in custody in Great Britain for terrorism-connected offences. This total was comprised of 158 persons (65%) in custody who held Islamist extremist views, 64 (26%) who held extreme right-wing views, and a further 22 (9%) individuals who subscribed to other ideologies.

Since the year ending September 2021 onwards, data has been collected and published on the number of persons detained and applications for extension of detention in Great Britain under Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Data has also been collected and published on the number of requests for access to a solicitor by persons detained in Great Britain under Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Under Section 41 of TACT 2000, police officers have the power to arrest persons suspected of terrorism-related offences without a warrant. Standard arrest powers for extending an individual’s detention is up to a maximum of 4 days, whereas under Section 41 of TACT 2000, there is the ability to extend detention to a maximum of 14 days. In the year ending 31 December 2023 of the individuals arrested under Section 41 of TACT 2000 in Great Britain who were subsequently detained, there were 15 applications for extension of detention granted by a judicial authority under Schedule 8 of TACT 2000.

Under Section 41 of TACT 2000, a person detained in police custody under the terrorism provisions is entitled to consult a solicitor privately. A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent can authorise a delay in permitting a detained person to consult a solicitor if they believe that exercising this right will result in any of the consequences listed in Schedule 8 of the Act. In the year ending 31 December 2023 of the individuals arrested under Section 41 of TACT 2000 in Great Britain who were subsequently detained, there were no instances where a request for access to a solicitor was delayed.

Figure 1: Arrests and outcomes year ending 31 December 2023

Arrests [1] and outcomes [2] year ending 31 December 2023

Figure 1 summarises how individuals who are arrested on suspicion of terrorism-related activity are dealt with through the criminal justice system. It follows the process from the point of arrest, through to charge (or other outcomes) and prosecution.

Arrested 221
Charged	81
Released without charge	59
Alternative action [3] Charged	13
Bailed to return and released under investigation	68
Decision pending	0

Charged 81
Terrorism related	68
Non-terrorism related	13

Terrorism related 68
Prosecuted	28
Not proceeded against	0
Other outcome [5]	4
Awaiting prosecution [6]	36

Non-terrorism related 13
Prosecuted	3
Not proceeded against	1
Other outcome [5]	0
Awaiting prosecution [6]	9

Terrorism related prosecuted 28
Convicted [7] terrorism related [4]	27
Convicted [7] non-terrorism related	0
Acquitted	1

Non-terrorism related prosecuted 3
Convicted [7] non-terrorism related [4]	3
Convicted [7] terrorism related [4]	0
Acquitted	0

Source: Home Office, Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation, data tables Q.01 to Q.07

Figure 1 notes

[1] Based on time of arrest, between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023.

[2] Data presented are based on the latest position with each case as at the date of data provision from National Counter Terrorism Police Operations Centre (NCTPOC) (03 April 2024).

[3] ‘Alternative action’ includes a number of outcomes, such as cautions, detentions under international arrest warrant, transfer to immigration authorities etc. See the quarterly data table A.03 for a complete list.

[4] Terrorism-related charges and convictions include some charges and convictions under non-terrorism legislation, where the offence is considered to be terrorism-related.

[5] The ‘other’ category includes other cases/outcomes such as cautions, transfers to Immigration Enforcement Agencies, the offender’s details being circulated as wanted, and extraditions.

[6] Cases that are ‘awaiting prosecution’ are not yet complete. As time passes, these cases will eventually lead to a prosecution, ‘other’ outcome, or it may be decided that the individual will not be proceeded against.

[7] Excludes convictions that were later quashed on appeal.

3. Disruptive powers

3.1 Stops and searches

Powers of search and seizure are vital in ensuring that the police can acquire evidence in the course of a criminal investigation and are powerful disruptive tools in the prevention of terrorism.

Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) enables a senior police officer to give an authorisation, specifying an area or place where they reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism will take place. Within that area and for the duration of the authorisation, a uniformed police constable may stop and search any vehicle or person for the purpose of discovering any evidence – whether or not they have a reasonable suspicion that such evidence exists – that the person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or that the vehicle is being used for such purposes.

The authorisation must be necessary to prevent the act of terrorism which the authorising officer reasonably suspects will occur, and it must specify the minimum area and time period considered necessary to do so. The authorising officer must inform the Secretary of State (Home Secretary) of the authorisation as soon as is practicable, and the Secretary of State must confirm it. If the Secretary of State does not confirm the authorisation, it will expire 48 hours after being made. The Secretary of State may also substitute a shorter period, or a smaller geographical area, than was specified in the original authorisation.

Until September 2017, this power had not been used in Great Britain since the threshold of authorisation was formally raised in 2011. This reflects the intention that the power should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, and the requirement that it only be used where necessary to prevent an act of terrorism that it is reasonably suspected is going to take place within a specified area and period. However, following the Parsons Green attack on 15 September 2017, the power was authorised for the first and only time to date, by four forces: British Transport Police (BTP), City of London Police, North Yorkshire Police, and West Yorkshire Police. There were a total of 128 stop and searches conducted (126 of which were conducted by BTP), which resulted in 4 arrests (all BTP).

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL), Jonathan Hall KC, recommended in his 2018 report that CT Policing should consider providing national advice to forces on whether, in response to a raising of the national threat level to critical, authorisations under section 47A TACT 2000 should be made; and the Home Office and CT Policing should consider whether the 2012 Code of Practice on section 47A requires revision. The IRTL subsequently reported in 2021 that CT Policing have developed a centralised advisory system, addressed to authorising officers and their tactical advisers, on the circumstances in which a section 47A authorisation should be considered. The IRTL further reported that under local response plans, police forces are not to consider section 47A as a default option in response to the raising of the national threat level to critical, and an amended Code of Practice has been published which makes it clear that a general high threat from terrorism (including when the national threat level has been raised to critical) should not form the sole basis for authorising the use of section 47A.

In the year ending 31 December 2023, 204 persons were stopped and searched by the Metropolitan Police Service under section 43 of TACT 2000. This represents a 38% decrease from the previous year’s total of 2 . Over the longer term, there has been an 81% fall in the number of stops and searches, from 1,052 in the year ending 31 December 2011 (when the data collection began). In the year ending 31 December 2023, there were 20 resultant arrests; the arrest rate of those stopped and searched under section 43 was 10%, down from 11% in the previous year. ^{[footnote 3]}

3.2 Port and border controls

Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act (TACT) 2000 (Schedule 7) helps protect the public by allowing accredited counter-terrorism police officers ‘Examining Officers’ to stop and question and, when necessary, detain and search individuals travelling through ports, airports, international rail stations or the border area. The purpose of the questioning is to determine whether that person appears to be someone who is, or has been, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Schedule 7 also allows Examining Officers to examine goods to determine whether they have been used in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Prior knowledge or suspicion that someone is involved in terrorism is not required for the exercise of the Schedule 7 power. Examinations are also about talking to people in respect of whom there is no suspicion but who, for example, are travelling to and from places where terrorist activity is taking place, to determine whether those individuals are, or have been, involved in terrorism.

The Schedule 7 Code of Practice for Examining Officers provides guidance on the selection of individuals for examination. The most recent version of the Code, which came into effect in July 2022, is clear that selection of a person for examination must not be arbitrary or for discriminatory reasons and should not be based on protected characteristics alone. ^{[footnote 4]} When deciding whether to select a person for examination, officers will take into account considerations that relate to the threat of terrorism, including known and suspected sources of terrorism, specific patterns of travel and observation of a person’s behaviour.

When an individual is examined under Schedule 7 they are given a Public Information Leaflet, which is available in multiple languages and outlines the purpose of Schedule 7 as well as any rights and obligations relating to use of the power. No person can be examined for longer than an hour unless the Examining Officer has formally detained them. Any person detained under Schedule 7 is entitled to receive legal advice from a solicitor and have a named person informed of their detention. A more senior ‘review officer’ who is not directly involved in the questioning of the individual must then consider on a periodic basis whether the continued detention is necessary.

The Public Information Leaflet and Code of Practice also include relevant contact details in case a person wishes to make a complaint regarding their examination. An individual can complain about a Schedule 7 examination by writing to the Chief Officer of the police force for the area in which the examination took place. Additionally, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL) is responsible for reporting each year on the operation of the Schedule 7 power.

Statistics on the operation of Schedule 7 powers are published by the Home Office on a quarterly basis. ^{[footnote 5]}

In the year ending 31 December 2023, 2,737 examinations were made under Schedule 7 of TACT 2000 in the United Kingdom, 6% higher than the previous year when 2,592 examinations were made. Of the 2,737 examinations made in the year ending 31 December 2023, 396 (14%) were intra-UK examinations, compared to 430 of 2,592 (17%) in the previous year.

Throughout the same period, the number of detentions following examinations in Great Britain increased by 19% from 1,366 in the year ending 31 December 2022 to 1,630 in the year ending 31 December 2023.

Of those individuals that were detained (excluding those who did not state their ethnicity), 19% categorised themselves as ‘O9 - Any Other Ethnic Group Background’. The next most prominent ethnic groups were: ‘A9 - Any Other Asian Background’ at 18% and ‘O2 - Arab’ at 15%. The proportion of those that categorised their ethnicity as ‘W1 – British’ or ‘A2 Pakistani’ made up 10% and 8% respectively.

Since April 2016, the Home Office has collected additional data relating to the use of Schedule 7. This data includes the number of goods examinations (sea and air freight), the number of strip searches conducted, and the number of refusals following a request by an individual to postpone questioning. In the year ending 31 December 2023, a total of 959 air freight and 84 sea freight examinations were conducted in Great Britain. Regarding strip searches over the same period, there were 4 instances carried out under Schedule 7. There were no refusals to postpone questioning (usually to enable an individual to consult a solicitor). One individual was delayed access to a solicitor during the same period.

Since the year ending June 2021, data has also been collected and published on the number of persons where one or more biometric identifier was taken during an examination made under Schedule 7 in the United Kingdom. A biometric identifier (taken during an examination under Schedule 7) includes photographs, fingerprints and DNA samples. In the year ending 31 December 2023, 57% of examinations made under Schedule 7 resulted in at least one biometric identifier being taken from an individual 1,562 persons out of 2,737 examinations).

3.3 Counter-terrorism sanctions in the UK

The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (the Sanctions Act), which came into force on 23 May 2018, provides the legal framework for the UK to impose, update and lift sanctions both autonomously and in compliance with our UN obligations, following exit from the EU.

There are three main counter-terrorism sanctions regimes in effect in the UK which are led by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and His Majesty’s Treasury HM Treasury . The FCDO is responsible for all UN and UK autonomous international sanctions and designations and HM Treasury is responsible for the UK’s domestic counter-terrorism sanctions regime and designations made under it. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), part of HM Treasury, is the competent authority for the implementation and enforcement of financial sanctions in the UK.

ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (United Nations Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (‘CT1’)

The ISIL Da’esh and Al-Qaida (United Nations Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ^{[footnote 6]} is an FCDO-led regime, implementing the UK’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2368, and designates individuals and entities named on the United Nations ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Resolution 1267’s Sanctions List. Measures imposed against persons designated under these regulations include an asset freeze, arms embargo and travel ban. ^{[footnote 7]}

The Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (‘CT 2’)

The Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ^{[footnote 8]} is also an FCDO-led regime. This set of regulations relating to international counter-terrorism sanctions allows the UK to implement autonomous UK listings with an international focus related to counter-terrorism, including many that were previously made under the EU Common Position 931 regime. The regime (along with the domestic sanctions regime below) ensures the UK implements its international obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

The Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2 1 (‘CT 3’)

The Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ^{[footnote 9]} is led by HM Treasury and is the UK’s domestic counter-terrorism sanctions regime. The intention of CT3 is to further the prevention of terrorism in the UK or elsewhere and protect the UK national security interests through the designation of individuals, groups or entities with a UK nexus including where UN financial sanctions are not available or deemed an appropriate tool to utilise.

Additionally, the CT3 regime enables HMG to continue to meet the UK’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and designate those who have a domestic UK nexus. Meeting these obligations is also part of the 40 standards on anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing and counter-proliferation financing set out by the Financial Action Task Force FATF . FATF evaluated the UK’s compliance with its standards in 2018 and has given the UK the highest possible ratings on the UK’s system to combat terrorist financing, including through the UK’s sanctions legislative framework. The full 2018 report is available.

Financial sanctions imposed by the UK’s three counter-terrorism sanctions regimes operate to freeze any funds or economic resources owned, held, or controlled by a designated person ^{[footnote 10]} (as such, persons are prohibited from dealing with such funds or economic resources if they know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that they are dealing with such funds or economic resources).

Financial sanctions also make it an offence for any person to make funds or economic resources available (directly or indirectly) to, or for the benefit of, a designated person (including entity) where that person knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, the individual or entity is designated. The UK’s counter-terrorism sanction regimes contain robust safeguards with the aim of keeping any restrictions proportionate to their purpose.

Under regulation 6(1)(a) and (2) of the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Counter Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, HM Treasury or FCDO may only designate persons where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is, or has been, involved in terrorist activity, or is owned, controlled (directly or indirectly) or acting on behalf of or at the direction of someone who is, or has been, involved in terrorist activity, or is a member of, or associated with, a person who is or has been so involved.

In addition, there are a number of other safeguards to ensure that the UK’s counter-terrorism sanctions regimes operate fairly and proportionately:

• The Home Secretary may direct that exceptions are made to travel bans on individuals
• HM Treasury may grant licences authorising certain activities or types of transaction that would otherwise be prohibited by sanctions legislation
• In addition to issuing licences relating to a specific person, HM Treasury may also issue general licences, which authorise otherwise prohibited activity by a particular category of persons
• The overall objective of the licensing system for terrorism designations is to strike an appropriate balance between minimising the risk of diversion of funds to terrorism and respecting the human rights of designated persons and other third parties. HM Treasury grants licences where there is a legitimate need for such activities or transactions to proceed. This helps to ensure that the sanctions regime remains effective, fair and proportionate in its application.
• The appropriate minister must without delay take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform the designated person of the designation, variation or revocation under the Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 or the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
• Designations must generally be made public, along with the ‘statement of reasons’, which is a brief statement of the matters that the appropriate minister knows, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, in relation to the designated person which have led the appropriate minister to make the designation. Designations can be notified on a restricted basis and not be made public when one of the conditions in regulation 8(7) of the Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is met. Those conditions are that:

1. the Secretary of State or the Treasury believe that the designated person is under the age of 18; or

2. the Secretary of State or the Treasury consider the disclosure of the designation should be restricted:

   i. in the interests of national security or international relations

   ii. for reasons connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; or

   iii. in the interests of justice.

Where a designation is notified on a restricted basis, the Secretary of State and HM Treasury can specify that people informed of the designation treat the information as confidential.

• A designated person may request a variation or revocation of their designation under section 23 of the Sanctions Act, for instance, if they consider that they no longer satisfy the criteria for designation. The appropriate minister must then decide whether to vary or revoke the designation, or to take no action with respect to it. Section 25 of the Sanctions Act provides a right for persons designated by the UN to request that the Secretary of State uses their best endeavours to secure their removal from the relevant UN list.
• Following a review under section 23, a designated person has a right to apply to the High Court to request that the appropriate minister’s decision on that review be set aside (see section 38 of the Sanctions Act). Anyone affected by a licensing decision (including the designated person) can seek to challenge on judicial review grounds any licensing decisions of HM Treasury. If necessary, there is a closed material procedure available for such appeals or challenges using specially cleared advocates to protect closed material whilst ensuring a fair hearing for the claimant.
• The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has conducted a review and report on the operation of the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This was published on 15 December 2022, and both the report and the response are available on GOV.UK.
• At the end of September 2022, frozen funds totalling £84,000 were reported to OFSI as frozen across the UK’s three counter-terrorism sanctions regimes. ^{[footnote 11]}

The following table sets out the number of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies designated under the UK’s counter-terrorism sanctions regimes as of 31 December 2023:

Designations (at the end of the quarter)	ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida	Counter-Terrorism (International)	Counter-Terrorism (Domestic)
Total number of designations	345	57	2
Total number of designated individuals	256	35	2
Total number of designated groups and entities	89	22	0

Listings

1. List of all the individuals, entities and ships that are designated or specified under regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018

2. Consolidated list of all those subject to financial sanctions imposed by the UK

Further information about the UK’s autonomous counter-terrorism sanctions regimes can be found here:

UK sanctions relating to ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida

UK sanctions relating to international counter-terrorism

UK sanctions relating to domestic counter-terrorism

3.4 Counter-terrorism financing

This is the first time this report has included a section on the countering terrorism financing (CTF) offences and the disruptive powers available to law enforcement.

The UK has a robust counter-terrorism financing toolkit. It aims to deter, detect, disrupt, and prevent the flow of terrorist finances into, out of and around the UK. As part of this toolkit, the UK has a strong counter-terrorism legislative framework which is vital to criminalise terrorist financing in all its forms and ensure that the police have wide-ranging legal powers to disrupt and pursue terrorist property.

The Terrorism Act (TACT) 2000 provides both the legal definition of ‘terrorist property’ and the terrorist financing offences. ‘Terrorist property’ is a broad term which is defined under paragraph 14 of TACT 2000, as meaning:

• money or other property which is likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism (including any resources of a proscribed organisation – see page 36 for the proscription section)
• proceeds of the commission of acts of terrorism
• proceeds of acts carried out for the purposes of terrorism

TACT 2000 also sets out the terrorist financing offences, which are:

• Fund-raising: A person commits an offence if they invite another to provide, they receive, or they provide money and other property, and intends for it to be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism (section 15 of TACT 2000). The definition of the ‘purposes of terrorism’ can be taken to include “for the benefit of a proscribed organisation”.

• Use and possession: A person commits an offence if they use, or they possess money or other property, and intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism (section 16 of TACT 2000).

• Funding arrangements: A person commits an offence if they enter into or become concerned in an arrangement as a result of which, money or other property is made available, or is made available to another, and they know or have reasonable cause to suspect that it will, or may be used, for the purposes of terrorism (section 17 of TACT 2000).

• Insurance against payments made in response to terrorist demands: The insurer under an insurance contract commits an offence if, the insurer makes a payment under the contract or purportedly under it, or the insurer or the person authorising the payment knows or has reasonable cause to suspect, that the money or other property has been, or is to be, handed over in response to a demand made wholly or partly for the purposes of terrorism (section 17A of TACT 2000).

• Money laundering: A person commits an offence if they enter into or become concerned in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by, or on behalf of another person, of terrorist property (section 18 of TACT 2000).

The terrorist financing offences apply to the UK and have extra-territorial jurisdiction. This means that if a person does something outside of the UK which, had it been carried out in the UK would have constituted the commission of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18, they shall be liable to prosecution as if it had been done in the UK (section 63 of the Act). Section 117 of TACT 2000 requires the Attorney General’s consent for all extra-territorial jurisdiction prosecutions.

The UK also has wide-ranging legal powers for law enforcement to utilise in detecting, pursuing, disrupting, and preventing terrorist financing. Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001, provides law enforcement with the powers of seizure, detention, or for applying to freeze, and forfeit terrorist property. This includes Part 1 which provides for the forfeiture of ‘terrorist cash’, which is cash that is intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism, consists of the resources of an organisation which is a proscribed organisation, or is property earmarked as terrorist property, and includes the following found at any place in the UK:

• coins and notes in any currency
• postal orders
• cheques of any kind, including travellers’ cheques
• bankers’ drafts
• bearer bonds and bearer shares
• gaming vouchers
• fixed value casino tokens
• betting receipts

Part 2 to 4 applies to the seizure, detention and forfeiture of terrorist cash.

Part 4A applies to the forfeiture of terrorist assets. These are ‘listed assets’, which means an item of property that falls within one of the descriptions as stated below. This Part also sets out the seizure, detention and safe keeping of these items, prior to forfeiture or release. Listed assets can be in the form of the following:

• precious metals
• precious stones
• watches
• artistic works
• face-value vouchers
• postage stamps

Part 4B applies to the application for account freezing orders and the forfeiture of terrorist money that is held within an account maintained by a relevant financial institution.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) amended Schedule 1 to ATCSA 2001 to extend the existing regimes for law enforcement to seize, detain, apply to freeze, and forfeit terrorist assets to include terrorist cryptoassets, following an increase in their use in both criminal and terrorism investigations.

The following tables set out cash forfeitures, confiscation orders and account forfeitures over the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023:

Cash forfeiture	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001	Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002*
Amount	£14,384	£49,027
Total	£63,411

*Counter-Terrorism Policing utilise POCA powers as a disruptive tool where the use of ATCSA is not appropriate

Confiscation orders	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001	Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002*
Benefit	-	£1,176,016
Available	-	£293,876
Total	£293,876

*Counter-Terrorism Policing utilise POCA powers as a disruptive tool where the use of ATCSA is not appropriate.

‘Benefit’ is the amount the court agreed the subject of interest had benefitted from.

‘Available’ is the amount the subject of interest actually had available.

Account forfeiture	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001	Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002*
Amount	£18,000	£900,728
Total	£918,728

• Counter-Terrorism Policing use POCA powers as a disruptive tool where the use of ATCSA is not appropriate.

3.5 Terrorism prevention and investigation measures

Terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIMs) allow the Home Secretary to impose a powerful range of disruptive measures on a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security but who cannot be prosecuted or, in the case of foreign nationals, deported. These measures can include residence requirements (including relocation to another part of the UK), police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from specific places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, telephones and computers, and a ban on holding travel documents.

It is the government’s assessment that, for the foreseeable future, there will remain a small number of individuals who pose a real threat to our security but who cannot be either prosecuted or deported, and there continues to be a need for powers to protect the public from the threat posed by these people.

The use of TPIMs is subject to stringent safeguards. Before the Secretary of State (Home Secretary) decides to impose a TPIM notice on an individual, she must be satisfied that five conditions are met, as set out at section 3 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 ^{[footnote 12]}. The Secretary of State must apply to the High Court for permission to impose the TPIM notice on the individual, except in cases of urgency where the notice must be immediately referred to the court for confirmation.

All individuals upon whom a TPIM notice is imposed are automatically entitled to a review hearing at the High Court under section 9 of the TPIM Act 2011 relating to the decision to impose the notice and the individual measures in the notice. They may appeal under section 16 of the Act against any decisions made subsequent to the imposition of the notice, i.e. a refusal of a request to vary a measure, a variation of a measure without their consent, or the revival or extension of their TPIM notice. The Secretary of State must keep under review the necessity and proportionality of the TPIM notice and specified measures during the period that the notice is in force.

Under the TPIM Act 2011 the Secretary of State is required to report to Parliament, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three month period, on the exercise of her TPIM powers. Copies of all the written ministerial statements, which detail the number of cases per quarter, can be found by searching Hansard

The total number of individuals who have been served a TPIM Notice since the TPIM Act 2011 received Royal Assent (December 2011) up to 31 December 2023 is 31. This is an increase of two TPIM Notices being served compared to year ending 31 December 2022.

3.6 Royal Prerogative

The Royal Prerogative is a residual power of the Crown which is used widely across government in a number of different contexts. Secretaries of state exercise a range of prerogative powers and the courts have upheld the legitimacy of prerogative powers that are not based in primary legislation.

A passport remains the property of the Crown at all times. HM Passport Office issues or refuses passports under the Royal Prerogative and there are a number of grounds for withdrawal or refusal. The Home Secretary has the discretion, under the Royal Prerogative, to refuse to issue or to withdraw a British passport on public interest grounds. This criterion supports the use of the Royal Prerogative in national security cases. The Royal Prerogative is therefore an important tool to disrupt individuals who seek to travel on a British passport to engage in terrorism-related activity and who would return to the UK with enhanced capabilities to do the public harm.

The public interest criteria to refuse or withdraw a passport were set out in a written ministerial statement to Parliament on 25 April 2013 ^{[footnote 13]}. The policy allows passports to be withdrawn, or applications for passports to be refused, where the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This may include circumstances where:

A person whose past, present or proposed activities, actual or suspected, are believed by the Home Secretary to be so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is contrary to the public interest.

(Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament 25 April 2013)

The application of discretion by the Home Secretary will primarily focus on preventing overseas travel, but there may be cases in which the Home Secretary believes that the past, present or proposed activities (actual or suspected) of the applicant or passport holder should prevent their enjoyment of a passport facility whether or not overseas travel is a critical factor.

Under the public interest criterion, in relation to national security, the Royal Prerogative was not exercised to withdraw or to deny access to British passport facilities in 2023. Since 2013, until 31 December 2023 the total number of individuals who have had their British passport facilities withdrawn under the public interest criteria is 97.

An individual may ask for a review of any decision to deny access to passport facilities or apply for a new passport at any time (prompting a review of the decision). Applying for a new passport automatically prompts a review of the decision if the Royal Prerogative was exercised to cancel the passport in the first place. In addition, if significant new information comes to light a case review may be triggered. In 2023, there were seven reviews undertaken which led to four individuals having their passport facilities restored. Under the Royal Prerogative, the Home Secretary maintained the decision to continue to deny British passport facilities to three individuals.

3.7 Seizure and temporary retention of travel documents

Schedule 1 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 enables police officers at ports to seize and temporarily retain travel documents to disrupt immediate travel, when they reasonably suspect that a person intends to travel to engage in terrorism-related activity outside the UK.

The temporary seizure of travel documents provides the authorities with time to investigate an individual further and consider taking longer term disruptive action such as prosecution, exercising the Royal Prerogative to withdraw a British passport, or serving an individual with a TPIM order.

Travel documents can only be retained for up to 14 days while investigations take place. The police may apply to the courts to extend the retention period, but this must not exceed 30 days in total.

The power was used once in 2023.

Since 2015 until 31 December 2023 the total number of individuals who have had their passport and travel documents seized under Schedule 1 powers is 75.

3.8 Serious crime prevention orders in relation to terrorism

Serious crime prevention orders (SCPOs) were introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2007. They are civil preventative orders which can impose tailored prohibitions, restrictions and requirements on an individual, bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations for a period of up to five years to prevent or disrupt their involvement in serious crime, including terrorism. The terms of an SCPO might relate to, for example: an individual’s business and financial dealings, their use of premises or items, association with individuals, means of communication, or travel. SCPOs can be a powerful tool for preventing and disrupting the activities of the highest-harm criminals.

An SCPO can be made in the Crown Court following a conviction for a serious offence, or in the High Court in the absence of a conviction where the court is satisfied that a person has been ‘involved in serious crime’ as defined at section 2 1 of the 2007 Act. Either court may only make an SCPO if it has reasonable grounds to believe that an order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting the person’s involvement in serious crime. Breach of an SCPO is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. SCPOs are available UK-wide.

In recent years, legislative changes have been made to support the use of SCPOs in relation to terrorism. Changes made through the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 ensured that SCPOs can be applied for in connection with terrorism offences, through adding these to the list of ‘serious offences’ in Schedule 1 of the 2007 Act. Through the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act (CTSA) 2021, the 2007 Act was amended to enable chief police officers to apply directly to the High Court for an SCPO in terrorism-related cases. The legislation requires chief police officers to consult the relevant prosecuting authority before submitting the application.

Between the 1 January and 31 December 2023:

• In England and Wales 14 SCPOs were imposed by the Crown Court in relation to cases involving terrorism offences, and following applications made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

• In England and Wales, 0 applications were made by the CPS for High-Court SCPOs in terrorism-related cases.

• In England and Wales, 2 applications were made by Chief Officers of Police for High-Court SCPOs in terrorism-related cases.

• In Scotland, 0 SCPOs were imposed by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland in relation to a terrorism offence following application from the Lord Advocate.

• In Northern Ireland, 7 SCPOs were imposed by Crown Court following application by the PPS. None of the cases involved specific terrorist charges under terrorism legislation.

3.9 Exclusions

The Secretary of State (usually the Home Secretary) may decide to exclude a person if their presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. Exclusion is normally used in circumstances involving national security, unacceptable behaviour (such as extremism), international relations or foreign policy, and serious and organised crime.

The Secretary of State uses the exclusion power when justified and based on all available evidence. In all matters, the Secretary of State must act reasonably, proportionately and consistently. The power to exclude an individual from the UK is very serious and it is not used lightly.

In 2023, 8 individuals were excluded from the UK because their presence in the UK was considered not conducive to the public good.

3.10 Temporary exclusion orders

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 introduced temporary exclusion orders (TEOs). This is a statutory power which allows the Secretary of State (usually the Home Secretary) to disrupt and control the return to the UK of a UK national who has been involved in terrorism-related activity outside of the UK. The tool is important in helping to protect the public from any risk posed by individuals involved in terrorism-related activity abroad, including those who travelled to Syria and Iraq.

A TEO makes it unlawful for the subject to return to the UK without engaging with the UK authorities. It is implemented by withdrawing the TEO subject’s travel documents ensuring that when individuals do return, it is in a manner which the UK Government controls. The subject of a TEO commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he or she re-enters the UK in breach of the terms of the order.

A TEO also allows for certain obligations to be imposed once the individual returns to the UK and during the validity of the order. These usually include reporting to a police station, notifying the police of any change of address, or attending appointments under the Desistence and Disengagement Programme (DDP). The subject of a TEO also commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he or she breaches any of the conditions imposed.

There are two stages of judicial oversight for TEOs. The first is a court permission stage before a TEO is imposed by the Secretary of State. The second is an optional statutory review of the decision to impose a TEO and any in-country obligations after the individual has returned to the UK

There was one TEO imposed in 2023.

3.11 Deprivation of British Citizenship

The British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) provides the Secretary of State (usually the Home Secretary) with the power to deprive an individual of their British citizenship in certain circumstances. Such action paves the way for possible immigration detention, deportation or exclusion from the UK and otherwise removes an individual’s associated right of abode in the UK. The Secretary of State may deprive an individual of their British citizenship if satisfied that such action is ‘conducive to the public good’ conducive grounds or if the individual obtained their British citizenship by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of material fact.

The government considers that deprivation on ‘conducive grounds’ is an appropriate response to activities such as those involving:

• national security, including espionage and acts of terrorism directed at this country or an allied power
• unacceptable behaviour of the kind mentioned in the then Home Secretary’s statement of 24 August 2005 ‘glorification’ of terrorism etc ^{[footnote 14]}
• war crimes; and
• serious and organised crime

Section 40 of the BNA 1981, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, provides for the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice. This provision came into force on 10 May 2023.

A decision to deprive a person of their British citizenship on conducive grounds cannot be made if it would make a person stateless (no such requirement exists in cases where the citizenship was obtained fraudulently). In limited circumstances the Secretary of State may deprive a person of their British citizenship on the ground it is conducive to the public good even if it would leave them stateless. This action may only be taken where the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK and there are reasonable grounds for believing the person is able to become a national of another country or territory. To date this power has not been used since its introduction in 2014. David Anderson KC undertook the first statutory review of the additional element of the deprivation power, as required by the Immigration Act 2014. His report was published on 21 April 2016 ^{[footnote 15]}. A further review will be undertaken within 12 months of the power first being used.

The government considers removal of citizenship to be a serious step, one that is not taken lightly. This is reflected by the fact that the Secretary of State personally decides whether it is conducive to the public good to deprive an individual of British citizenship. Between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023, 2 people were deprived of British citizenship on the basis that to do so was ‘conducive to the public good’.

3.12 - Deportation with assurances

Where prosecution is not possible, or following the completion of a prison sentence, the deportation of foreign nationals to their country of origin may be an effective means of disrupting terrorism-related activities. Where there are concerns for an individual’s safety on return, government to government assurances may be used to achieve deportation in accordance with the UK’s human rights obligations.

Deportation with assurances (DWA) enables the UK to reduce the threat from terrorism by deporting foreign nationals who pose a risk to our national security, while still meeting our domestic and international human rights obligations. This includes Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A total of 12 people have been removed from the UK under DWA arrangements. There have been no DWA removals since 2013 and new agreements would need to be negotiated for any future cases.

Assurances in individual cases are the result of careful and detailed discussions, endorsed at senior government level, with countries with which we have working bilateral relationships. Arrangements must also be put in place – often including monitoring by a local human rights body – to ensure that the assurances can be independently verified. The use of DWA has been consistently upheld by the domestic and European courts.

The then Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson KC, reviewed the legal framework of DWA and examined whether the process can be improved, including by learning from the experiences of other countries. His report was published in July 2017 ^{[footnote 16]}. Lord Anderson noted that the UK had taken the lead in developing rights-compliant procedures for DWA; that future DWA proceedings were likely to take less time now that the central legal principles have been established by the highest courts; that for as long as the UK remains party to the ECHR, the provisions of the ECHR will remain binding on the UK in international law; that the key consideration in developing safety on return processes was whether compliance with assurances can be objectively verified; and that assurances could be tailored to particular categories of deportee, or to particular outcomes.

3.13 Proscription

Proscription is a powerful tool enabling the prosecution of individuals who are members or supporters of, or are affiliated with, a terrorist organisation. It can also support other disruptive powers including prosecution for wider offences, immigration powers such as exclusion, and terrorist asset freezing. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and are therefore liable to be seized.

Under the Terrorism Act (TACT) 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she reasonably believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:

• commits or participates in acts of terrorism
• prepares for terrorism
• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism) or
• is otherwise concerned in terrorism

‘Terrorism’ as defined in the Act means the use or threat of action which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life other than that of the person committing the act ; creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

An ‘organisation’ is ‘any association or combination of persons’. This broad description allows for proscription to be used against both decentralised organisations as well as groups with clear structures and leadership hierarchies.

If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary will consider the five discretionary factors set out to Parliament during the passage of TACT 2000 as well as any other relevant factors or policy considerations that need to be taken into account. The five discretionary factors are:

• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities
• the specific threat that it poses to the UK
• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas
• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK and
• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism

Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to:

• belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas (section 11 of the Act)
• invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1))
• express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation (section 12(1A))
• arrange, manage or assist in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation (section 12(2)); or to address a meeting if the purpose of the address is to encourage support for, or further the activities of, a proscribed organisation (section 12(3))
• wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation (section 13); and
• publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances (section 13(1A))

The penalties for proscription offences under sections 11 and 12 are a maximum of 14 years and/or an unlimited fine. The maximum penalty for a section 13 offence is six months in prison and/or a fine not exceeding £5,000.

Section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to specify by order that an alternative name or alias is to be treated as another name for a proscribed organisation.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a proscribed organisation, or any other person affected by a proscription, may submit a written application to the Home Secretary, asking that a determination be made whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations. The application must set out the grounds on which it is made. The precise requirements for an application are contained in the Proscribed Organisations (Applications for Deproscription etc) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2299) as amended by the Proscribed Organisations (Applications for Deproscription etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

The Home Secretary is required to determine a deproscription application within 90 days from the day after it is received. If the deproscription application is refused, the applicant may appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC). POAC will allow an appeal if it considers that the decision to refuse deproscription was flawed, applying judicial review principles. Either party can seek leave to appeal POAC’s decision at the Court of Appeal.

If the Home Secretary agrees to deproscribe the organisation, she will lay a draft order before Parliament removing the organisation from the list of proscribed organisations. Alternatively, if POAC allows an appeal it may make an order for the organisation to be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.

Under the same legislation proscription decisions in relation to Northern Ireland are a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, including deproscription applications for Northern Ireland groups.

Since 2000, the following four groups have been deproscribed:

• the Mujaheddin e Khalq MeK also known as the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran (PMOI) was removed from the list of proscribed groups in June 2008 as a result of judgments of POAC and the Court of Appeal
• the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) was removed from the list of proscribed groups in March 2016 following receipt of an application to deproscribe the organisation; and
• Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) was removed from the list of proscribed groups in December 2017 following receipt of an application to deproscribe the organisation
• Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was removed from the list of proscribed groups in November 2019 following receipt of an application to deproscribe the organisation

As of December 2023, there were 79 ^{[footnote 17]} terrorist organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. In addition, there are 14 organisations in Northern Ireland that were proscribed under previous legislation. Information about these groups’ aims) is given to Parliament at the time that they are proscribed and is available on GOV.UK.

In 2023, one terrorist organisation (Wagner Group) was proscribed because of its use of serious violence against Ukrainian armed forces, and against civilians to advance Russia’s political aims. Wagner Group has carried out preparatory acts of terrorism and has been implicated in serious acts of violence in certain African states.

3.14 - Tackling online terrorist content

The open internet is a powerful tool which terrorists exploit to radicalise and recruit individuals, and to incite and provide information to enable terrorist attacks. Terrorist groups and individual actors make extensive use of the internet to spread their messages and continue to diversify their approach, using a broad range of platforms to host and disseminate content. The UK’s dedicated police-led Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) refers content that they assess as contravening UK terrorism legislation to tech companies. If tech companies agree that content breaches their policies, they remove the content voluntarily. In 2023, the CTIRU has secured the removal of 930 pieces of terrorist content.

Online safety legislation

The Online Safety Act received Royal Assent in October 2023. This legislation will hold tech companies to account for protecting their users, particularly children. This framework will be overseen by an independent regulator, The Office of Communications (Ofcom), which has been given a range of powers to help them hold these companies to account.

Under their illegal content safety duties, in-scope companies must put in place measures that mitigate and manage the risks from terrorism as identified in their illegal content risk assessment. Ofcom has published draft terrorism specific codes of practice setting out a range of measures that companies can take to do this. Companies must implement the measures in Ofcom’s codes of practice or if not, establish equally effective ones. We expect Ofcom to publish the final codes of practice later in 2024.

An interim code of practice on terrorist content and activity online (2020) set out the steps that companies can take now to make their platforms safer for users. The interim code is principles-based and contains examples of good practice that companies may wish to undertake when implementing the code. This will enable companies to take swift action in tackling terrorist content and activity online. A review of the implementation of the interim codes and its outcome has been shared with Ofcom, to inform the development of its substantive codes.

The 2023 Act also provides Ofcom with an express power to require a company to use automated technology to identify and remove illegal terrorist content from their public channels. This power will be used where this is the only effective and proportionate and necessary action available and will be subject to strict safeguards including the accuracy of the tools, prevalence of illegal terrorist activity on the public channels of a service and the regulator being clear that other measures could not be equally effective.

4. Litigation safeguards

4.1 Closed material procedure

The Justice and Security Act 2013 extended the use of the Closed Material Procedure (CMP) to higher civil courts across the UK. Sections 6 to 11 of the Act make provision about the disclosure of sensitive material in civil proceedings. In particular, section 6 of the Act empowers senior courts (the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court (including in Northern Ireland), and the Court of Session (in Scotland)) to make a declaration that the case is one in which a closed material application may be made in relation to sensitive material, the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security, and that it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make such a declaration. ^{[footnote 18]} CMPs ensure that government departments, the UK Intelligence Community, law enforcement bodies and any other party to proceedings have the opportunity to properly defend themselves, where sensitive national security material is considered by the court to be involved. CMPs allow the courts to scrutinise matters that were previously not heard because disclosing the relevant material publicly would have damaged national security.

A CMP application can be made by either party to the proceedings, or the court can make a CMP declaration of its own motion.

Where a Secretary of State makes the application, the court must first satisfy itself that the Secretary of State has considered making, or advising another person to make, an application for public interest immunity in relation to the material. The court must also be satisfied that material would otherwise have to be disclosed which would damage national security and that closed proceedings would be in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice. Should the court be satisfied that the above criteria are met, a declaration may be made. During this part of the proceedings, a Special Advocate may be appointed to act in the interests of parties excluded from proceedings. Generally, once the Special Advocate has seen the sensitive material, they are unable to consult further with the excluded party.

Once a declaration is made, the Act requires that the decision to proceed with a CMP is kept under review, and the CMP may be revoked by a judge at any stage of proceedings, if it is no longer in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice.

A further hearing, following a declaration, determines which parts of the case should be dealt with in closed proceedings and which should be released into open proceedings. The test being considered here remains whether the disclosure of such material would damage national security.

Section 12 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to prepare (and lay before Parliament) an annual report on the use of CMP under the Act. The reports are published on GOV.UK. ^{[footnote 19]} In the first nine years of operation, between 25 June 2013 and 24 June 2022 ^{[footnote 20]}, there were:

• June 2013 to June 2014 – 5 Applications made, 2 Declarations made
• June 2014 to June 2015 – 11 Applications made, 5 Declarations made
• June 2015 to June 2016 – 12 Applications made, 7 Declarations made
• June 2016 to June 2017 – 13 Applications made, 14 Declarations made
• June 2017 to June 2018 – 13 Applications made, 5 Declarations made
• June 2018 to June 2019 – 4 Applications made, 7 Declarations made
• June 2019 to June 2020 – 6 Applications made, 4 Declarations made
• June 2020 to June 2021 – 6 Applications made, 5 Declarations made
• June 2021 to June 2022 – 22 Applications made, 21 Declarations made

Section 13 of the Act contains a requirement to review the first five years of operation of CMP under the Act. The review must cover the period from 25 June 2013 to 24 June 2018. On 25 February 2021, Sir Duncan Ouseley was appointed to conduct the statutory review. Sir Duncan Ouseley’s report was published on GOV.UK in November 2022. ^{[footnote 21]} The report highlighted the fact that many of the concerns over the use of CMP under the Act, during its passage through Parliament have not been borne out.

5. Oversight

The activities of the UK intelligence and security agencies (SIS, GCHQ and MI5) are governed by robust legal frameworks and oversight arrangements. Within HMG, there are internal oversight mechanisms such as the Home Secretary’s statutory responsibilities to oversee MI5, as well as the independent oversight provided by various judicial and Parliamentary bodies. Further information on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL) and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is provided below given their particular relevance to this report. For further information on other oversight bodies such as the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Information Commissioner’s Office ICO , the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office IPCO please see their public websites.

5.1 The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL), Jonathan Hall KC, was appointed to the role in May 2019 and his current term lasts until May 2025. The IRTL is appointed by the Home Secretary through open competition in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

The role of the IRTL is to keep under independent review the operation of a range of UK counter-terrorism legislation to ensure that it is effective, fair and proportionate. This helps to provide transparency, inform public and political debate, and maintain public and Parliamentary confidence in the exercise of counter-terrorism powers as the legislative landscape and threat from terrorism evolve. To allow the IRTL to perform his duties, he is security cleared and has access to the most sensitive information relating to counter-terrorism, as well as access to government staff and operational partners working in this area.

The IRTL is required by section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (TACT 2006) to report periodically on the operation of Part 1 of that Act and annually on the Terrorism Act 2000, although in practice the IRTL’s annual reports generally cover both Acts. Following changes made by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, the IRTL is also required to report annually on the operation of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. ^{[footnote 22]} Beyond this, he has discretion to set his work programme and can also review a range of other legislation depending on where he feels he should focus his attention, or if requested to do so by the Home Secretary or other ministers. The full remit of the IRTL includes:

• Terrorism Act 2000
• Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Part 1, and Part 2 in so far as it relates to counter-terrorism)
• Part 1 of the TACT 2006
• Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
• Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011; and
• Part 1 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015

The IRTL’s reports are presented to the Secretary of State, who is required to lay them before Parliament and publish them. The government also routinely publishes a formal response to each report.

The IRTL’s annual reports on TACT 2000 and part 1 of TACT 200 typically cover the following thematic areas:

• the definition of terrorism
• proscribed organisations
• terrorist property
• terrorist investigations, including stop and search powers
• arrest and detention
• port and border controls
• terrorism trials and sentencing; and
• special civil powers

At the beginning of every year the IRTL is required to provide the Home Secretary with a work programme that specifies what reviews they intend to conduct in that 12 month period. The Secretary of State may also ask the IRTL to undertake other ad hoc or snapshot reviews.

The current IRTL, Jonathan Hall KC, is also separately appointed by the Foreign Secretary and His Majesty’s Treasury to review the operation of regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act with a counter-terrorism purpose.

Reports « Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

6. Recommended reading list

Legislation

• Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

• Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

• Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019

• Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021

• Freedom of Information Act 2000 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2018

• Justice and Security Act 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Police Act 1997 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Policing and Crime Act 2017

• The Proscribed Organisations (Applications for Deproscription etc.) Regulations 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018

• Terrorism Act 2000 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Terrorism Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (legislation.gov.uk)

• Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020

Government publications

• Counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

• Counter-Terrorism Statistics, Operation of Police Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000

• Exclusion Decisions and Exclusion Orders
• Police and Border Officials on Seizing Travel Documents Code of Practice
• Royal Prerogative
• OFSI Annual Review 2021-2022

Independent publications

• Attacks in London and Manchester between March and June 2017; Independent Assessment of MI5 and Internal Reviews, David Anderson KC

• Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation website, including Annual Reports (Terrorism Acts, TPIMs, Asset-Freezing etc.) Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

• Deportation with assurances, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation review
• Intelligence and Security Committee, Publications
• Review of the operation of Counter Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Footnotes

1. Counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) 2023 ↩

2. As cases progress over time, arrests figures are likely to be revised and updated. As such, figures quoted in this report may not match the figures quoted in previous years’ reports. The latest arrests figures can be found in Table A.01 of the Operation of police powers under TACT 2000 statistics, to March 2024. ↩

3. Full statistical releases on the operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, including stop and search powers, are available. ↩

4. The full Schedule 7 Code of Practice is available on GOV.UK. ↩

5. Full statistical releases on the operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 are available on GOV.UK. ↩

6. The ISIL Da’esh and Al-Qaida (United Nations Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 ↩

7. Further information on the procedure for listing can be found in paragraph 6 ↩

8. The Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

9. The Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

10. Under the Sanctions Act, ‘person’ includes (in addition to an individual and a body of persons corporate or unincorporate) any organisation and any association or combination of persons. ↩

11. An asset freeze does not result in a change of ownership of the assets and is not equivalent to HMG seizing assets. ↩

12. The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

13. The issuing, withdrawal or refusal of passports - WMS ↩

14. Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament ↩

15. Citizenship removal resulting in statelessness - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

16. Deportation with assurances - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

17. The actual number of proscribed organisations is lower than this figure as some groups appear on the list of proscribed organisations under more than one name, for example, ‘Al Ghurabaa’ and ‘The Saved Sect’ both refer to the group commonly known as ‘Al Muhajiroun’. ↩

18. Justice and Security Act 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

19. Use of closed material procedure reports - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

20. The latest report, published on 11 January 2024, covers data from June 2021 to June 2022. The 2023 data will be captured in the CMP report due to be published later this year. ↩

21. Review of closed material procedure in the Justice and Security Act 2013 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

22. More information is available in the TPIM section of this report. ↩