Prevent Strategy And Criminal Liability
🔹 What is the Prevent Strategy?
The Prevent Strategy is a UK government-led programme aimed at stopping people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It is part of the broader CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy and focuses on:
Early intervention to identify and support individuals vulnerable to radicalisation.
Encouraging reporting and community engagement.
Working with educational institutions, healthcare, prisons, and social services.
🔹 Prevent and Criminal Liability: The Link
While Prevent itself is a prevention and safeguarding policy, not a criminal law, it connects to criminal liability in several ways:
Referrals and Investigations
Individuals flagged by Prevent may be subject to police investigation and prosecution if evidence of terrorism-related offences is found.
Duty to Report
Certain public bodies and professionals have a statutory duty to refer individuals showing signs of radicalisation, creating legal obligations.
Criminal Offences Related to Terrorism
Prevent feeds into enforcement of offences such as:
Encouragement of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2006)
Possession of terrorist material
Membership in proscribed organizations
Terrorist financing
Legal Challenges
The Prevent Strategy has faced legal scrutiny over civil liberties and due process concerns.
🔹 Key Legal Issues and Case Law
1. R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
🔸 Facts:
Case concerned prisoners' rights under the Home Office’s security policies, with implications for surveillance and monitoring.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Raised questions about surveillance practices akin to Prevent’s monitoring of individuals at risk.
🔸 Held:
The House of Lords emphasized the need to balance security with individual rights.
Monitoring and intervention must comply with human rights law.
🔸 Significance:
Sets a precedent for balancing Prevent measures with civil liberties.
2. R (on the application of B) v London Borough of Ealing [2019] EWHC 139 (Admin)
🔸 Facts:
A family challenged a school’s Prevent referral of a student they claimed was wrongly targeted.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Whether Prevent referrals must be based on reasonable suspicion and respect due process.
🔸 Held:
The High Court recognized the importance of safeguarding but stressed the need for clear, evidence-based referrals.
Prevent must not violate rights to privacy and education.
🔸 Significance:
Affirms that Prevent referrals can lead to criminal investigations but must meet legal standards.
3. R v Choudary and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 755
🔸 Facts:
Defendants were convicted for encouraging terrorism, including via online propaganda.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Role of Prevent in identifying individuals for prosecution.
🔸 Held:
Court upheld convictions, showing how Prevent interventions can lead to successful criminal prosecutions.
Highlights the overlap between Prevent’s preventive work and criminal law enforcement.
🔸 Significance:
Illustrates the criminal liability arising from acts Prevent seeks to pre-empt.
4. R (on the application of C) v The University of East London [2020] EWHC 1091 (Admin)
🔸 Facts:
Challenge against a university’s Prevent duties allegedly leading to unjustified surveillance.
🔸 Legal Issue:
How Prevent duties impact individual freedoms and the threshold for criminal suspicion.
🔸 Held:
Court stressed proportionality and fairness in applying Prevent obligations.
Prevent must not undermine academic freedom or due process.
🔸 Significance:
Emphasizes limits on Prevent-related surveillance and the importance of procedural safeguards.
5. R v Rahman [2015] EWCA Crim 1313
🔸 Facts:
Defendant convicted for possession of terrorist material and involvement in extremist groups.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Evidence partly gathered from Prevent-related referrals and monitoring.
🔸 Held:
Conviction upheld.
Shows how Prevent activities can provide leads for criminal prosecution.
🔸 Significance:
Demonstrates Prevent’s role in detecting actionable criminal conduct.
6. R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64
🔸 Facts:
Defendant challenged his conviction under Terrorism Act for possessing documents linked to terrorism.
🔸 Legal Issue:
Legality of convictions based on possession of extremist material flagged via Prevent or similar programs.
🔸 Held:
Supreme Court upheld convictions, reinforcing that criminal liability attaches to possession of terrorist material regardless of intention to act.
🔸 Significance:
Clarifies the criminal offences Prevent aims to prevent and prosecute.
🔹 Summary Table: Prevent and Criminal Liability
| Aspect | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Balancing Rights | Prevent actions must respect human rights and due process | Daly, Ealing |
| Evidence-based Referrals | Prevent referrals require reasonable suspicion and evidence | Ealing, University of East London |
| Link to Terrorism Offences | Prevent leads to prosecution for terrorism offences | Choudary, Rahman, Gul |
| Scope of Surveillance | Surveillance must be proportionate and lawful | University of East London |
| Civil Liberties Concerns | Prevent strategy faces challenges on privacy and discrimination | Daly, Ealing |
🔹 Conclusion
The Prevent Strategy is primarily a preventative public safety framework but operates closely with criminal law enforcement. While it does not itself create offences, it facilitates identifying individuals who may engage in terrorism and leads to criminal liability through:
Referral for investigation.
Evidence gathering.
Supporting prosecutions under terrorism laws.
Case law highlights the need for balance between effective prevention and respect for civil liberties, ensuring that Prevent activities comply with human rights and due process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments