Statutory sources and legal analysis
All Crown copyright, reproducible under the Open Government Licence.
- Sentencing Act 2020, s.69 — Offences with a terrorist connection legislation.gov.uk Statute legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/69 The mechanism. Judicial finding at sentencing, criminal standard, treated as an aggravating factor.
- Terrorism Act 2000, s.1 — Terrorism: interpretation legislation.gov.uk Statute legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 The three-limb test: serious damage to property; designed to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public; for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
- Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.247A — Restricted eligibility for release of terrorist prisoners legislation.gov.uk Statute legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/247A The practical consequence: no automatic release, Parole Board referral.
- Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.14 legislation.gov.uk Statute legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/14/enacted Two-year cap on committal for contempt in a superior court.
- The Palestine Action sentencing regime Verfassungsblog Academic verfassungsblog.de/palestine-action-sentencing-regime/ The most rigorous analysis of the constitutional tension in the first judicial application of s.69.
- Contempt of court — prosecution guidance Crown Prosecution Service Official cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/contempt-court
Hansard debates · 3 March 2021
On 3 March 2021, the House of Lords debated an amendment that would have required a jury — or at minimum a trial of the issue on admissible evidence — before any offence could be treated as having a terrorist connection. Lord Marks described, in terms, the exact scenario that has since happened at Woolwich and is now proposed at Preston. The government opposed it. The amendment was defeated 281 to 126.
Why this matters more than any headline
It converts the argument from “we don’t like this outcome” into “you were told exactly this would happen, and you voted it down.” That is a question a Member of Parliament has to answer rather than deflect.
Hansard is published under the Open Parliament Licence: you may reproduce, adapt and publish it freely, including commercially, with attribution. Quote it in full. Put it on a poster. Read it to camera.
Full verbatim text
hansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsText/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113
The whole debate as plain text — the cleanest way to pull exact wording without transcription errors. Everything below deep-links into individual contributions on the main page.
The contributions, in order
1 · The amendment
Proposed new subsections (1A) and (1B): no terrorist connection unless the defendant admitted it in person in open court, or there was a trial of the issue — determined by a jury unless the court found the interests of justice were better served by a judge alone.
2 · Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames — opening speech
The gold seam. Four passages worth lifting verbatim:
- The predictionParagraph 2. A jury convicts of the basic offence, meriting a short sentence; a judge alone, without hearing evidence, finds a terrorist connection and imposes a long one. This is the Filton and Burnley posture, described five years in advance.
- What the provision used to coverParagraph 3. Murder, explosives offences, hijacking, hostage-taking, serious aviation offences — all of which would merit long sentences anyway, which is why aggravating them was less objectionable.
- The broadeningParagraph 4. Extension to any offence carrying more than two years, with a worked example of low-level ABH.
- The consequencesParagraph 5. Notification requirements classing the offender as a terrorist with lifelong consequences, forfeiture provisions, and restricted early release. Ends on the phrase quoted below.
the consequences of a finding of a terrorist connection are devastating for the offender Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames · HL Deb 3 March 2021
3 · Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown — against
Argued the concerns were overstated: judges already exercise sentencing discretion, and the criminal standard applies. Include this. A document that quotes only the objectors looks curated. Quoting the opposing case and then showing what happened is stronger than pretending it was never made.
4 · Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede — Labour front bench
Labour did not oppose. He preferred the Newton hearing route and confirmed they would abstain. Directly relevant now that a Labour government is applying the provision.
5 · Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay — the government’s answer
The single most quotable passage in the debate. Find the paragraph beginning “During the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008…”
It records that the government considered putting the terrorist connection to the jury, discussed it with experienced prosecutors, and rejected it — because if the defence disputed whether the conduct fell within the definition of terrorism, that would cause lengthy diversions, divert the prosecution from securing swift justice, and create significantly longer trials.
Read that twice. The stated reason for keeping the question from the jury is that the defence might successfully dispute whether it was terrorism — and that this would take time.
Also in this speech: the s.66 racial-hostility analogy; the endorsement by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, who told the Public Bill Committee this measure would make the most substantial difference to public safety of anything in the Bill; and the two offered safeguards — the judge must state the finding in open court, and it can be appealed.
6 · Lord Marks — reply
The closing paragraph is the Burnley case in one sentence: nothing he had heard allowed for the possibility that an offender guilty only of the basic offence, but not of committing it with a terrorist connection, would nevertheless be sentenced on the aggravated basis by a judge who had heard only representations.
7 · The division
Content 126. Not Content 281. Amendment disagreed.
The outputType=Names parameter returns every peer who voted each way. Some are still sitting.
Related debates worth mining
- Lords Committee stage — 26 January 2021 Clause 1 stand part theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-01-26b.1531.0 Where Marks first opposed the clause entirely, and Lord Thomas of Gresford raised the Newton hearing option. The argument here is longer and in places sharper than the Report-stage version.
- Commons Public Bill Committee, Fourth Sitting — 30 June 2020 Amendment 35, standard of proof hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-30/debates/862dd57f-2a10-4d00-a5f4-8df964afa0a6/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill(FourthSitting) Where the Lammy Review’s findings on sentencing disparity were put directly against this clause.
The ask
Amend s.69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 so that no offence may be treated as having a terrorist connection unless the defendant admits it in open court or the issue is tried on admissible evidence. The drafting already exists — it is Amendment 1, moved on 3 March 2021, and it has been sitting in the record for five years.