---

Terrorism Bill

I have a certain problem with the proposals. The interpolation of judicial authority relates to a notice that is declaratory that, as Clause 3(3)(a) says,"““the statement or the article or record is unlawfully””—" observe the word—"““terrorism-related””." My concern is whether it is appropriate that in a matter of this kind the court should be involved, and my concern becomes the greater when I turn to Amendment No. 68, which deals with the definition of an ““appropriate judge””. The amendment says that in Scotland that will be,"““a sheriff or a judge of the Court of Session””." In Scotland the Court of Session is a civil court; it is the High Court of Justiciary that is the criminal court. It might be said that what is involved here is properly a criminal matter and not a civil one and would therefore fall properly within the criminal jurisdiction, which in Scotland is exercised by the High Court of Justiciary. I hasten to add that that problem does not arise in England because the High Court has both criminal and civil jurisdiction. In parenthesis, I point out that my Amendment No. 125, which is related to the definition of ““senior judge””, where that appears in Clause 23(9), insofar as it concerns the extension of the period of detention of terrorist suspects, which is again a criminal and not a civil matter, is directed to the same point. Perhaps out of courtesy I can give that information to the Minister now. I also point out that even in this Bill, by contrast, forfeiture proceedings in Schedule 2 are declared by paragraph 7 to be civil proceedings and are therefore appropriately to be instituted in Scotland either in the Court of Session or in the sheriff court, which exercises a civil and a criminal jurisdiction. For those reasons, at this stage I would want to be convinced that it was appropriate in the first place to bring in any judicial authority to the issue of a notice. How it might be done otherwise is another matter; but if you have a declarator that something is a terrorism-related publication and thereafter there is the opportunity, it may be, for further proceedings if the notice is not obeyed, it might be difficult to argue that in fact—whatever the opinion of the judge—it was not something that was struck at by the Act. With regard to Amendment No. 68, I simply express concern that if there is to be an appropriate judge, as defined, it should be one who exercises criminal jurisdiction.