Terrorism Act 2000

[Q G Campbell]

Donald

Can of worms indeed!

If that is the case then we are more likely to be a victim of the TA2000
itself than of a terrorist outrage it is supposed to protect us from!=20

It also puts a slightly different complexion on Jack Straw's reply when
asked whether, under TA2000, anti-GM crop activists are terrorists. If
you recall he said "that was for the courts to decide".=20

What he must have really meant to say was "I hope so, but the courts
will get the blame for this rather than the Labour Party".

Living in a farming & hunting area as I do I haven't a lot of time for
crop destroyers and anti-hunt protesters but I would like to see a bit
of honesty in politicians. If these people are now to be treated as
terrorists, rather than just criminals, then Jack Straw should have said
so.
=20
I am reminded of a lecture in which it was said of an historical figure:
"he was accused of being a mendacious and manipulating politician but
the Judge found that he was just a common criminal, thus restoring his
reputation".   :-}
  =20
Quentin
--
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can get its own."
    =20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald ramsbottom [mailto:donald@ramsbottom.co.uk]
> Sent: 22 February 2001 15:27
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: Terrorism Act 2000
>=20
>=20
> Quentin,
>=20
> SNIPs
>=20
> >Fearing an early morning knock on my door I looked for reassurance in
> >the Explanatory Notes to the Act.
> >
> >Whatever NHS bureaucrats may assert about his proposed political
> >campaign, these actions do not appear to meet the interpretation of
> >"Terrorism" in the Explanatory Notes.
> >
> More snips
>=20
> Good logical thinking, again as some one has said elsewhere,=20
> thinking like
> a Computer type rather than a lawyer! Well you would have thought the
> explanatory notes would have some effect, WRONG!=20
> Unfortunately they have no
> legal effect at all and it may even be difficult to introduce them in
> evidence!
>=20
> I will not bore you all with what can and cannot be=20
> introduced in evidence
> or may be considered by the Court. The general rule however is if the
> Statute is unambigous, in a literal sense, then it will not=20
> be interpretted
> by the courts but applied. There are of course numerous=20
> exceptions, but
> explanatory notes are only used rarely (if at all) (to my knowledge).
>=20
> So all you say is perfectly logical and reasonable, just not legal!
>=20
> It could be argued that the wording is so wide as to be=20
> meaningless, but
> that is another can of worms alltogether.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
> Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
> Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK =20
> Law Matters
> 5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
> Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
> Regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of Investment business
> Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted
>=20
>=20
>=20