DPP says CPS will consider terrorism in disorder cases

Mr Stephen Parkinson has been Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) since 1 November 2023. He is the 17th holder of the office which dates from 1880. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was DPP from 2008 to 2013. Crucially, the DPP is the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - see Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Against the background of the public disorder of late July and early August, Mr Parkinson is reported to have said that "terrorism offences" would be considered . "Where you have organised groups planning activity for the purposes of advancing [an] ideology... planning really, really serious disruption then yes, we will consider terrorism offences." 

The term "terrorism" is interpreted

as set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 section 1. The essence of terrorism is the use or threat of action designed to influence the government (or an international governmental organisation) or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat of action is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

"Action" is within the meaning of "terrorism" if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life ..., (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The CPS website has published Terrorism | The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk) where various offences are set out. The webpage also includes a note on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 which ends the prospect of early release for anyone convicted of a serious terror offence.

It remains to be seen whether charges related to terrorism will actually be brought in connection with the serious public disorder which has far too often involved arson (Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1). Modern-day public order legislation is extensive enough to address the majority of the disorder cases but, if there is a terrorism element, then the law has the tools to address it.

BUT .... is there an argument against using terrorism charges? "Terrorism" is usually associated with action aimed at government - though it does not have to be. "Terrorists" are usually driven by ideology and bringing terrorist charges carries a risk that people charged are then seen as martyrs for some cause or other. It is a risk that the DPP will have to consider.

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has stated - 

"The fact that the definition of terrorism is broad and vague is not a new observation but bears repetition because it forms the basis for extended criminal liability, the use of strong and intrusive investigative powers including extended pre-charge detention, special civil powers such as TPIMs and, under recent legislation, longer sentences and more intrusive post-release management." 

The Terrorism Acts in 2020 report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (accessible version) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

Impact of riots will be felt for years, justice secretary warns - BBC News