Max Hill QC: No need for new terror laws or increased sentences for ‘modest offences’

The UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Max Hill QC, has spoken out against creating new terror offences or increasing sentences for “modest or middle ground terrorist offences”.

Mr Hill made the remarks while delivering the 2017 Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture in London last night.

His lecture discussed the tension between rights and security, and the potential for terrorism legislation, in the interests of “national security”, to impinge upon fundamental human rights.

Mr Hill said that “wide discretion must rest with the experienced judiciary who try these cases”, adding: “If we are to see increased sentencing powers, I cannot see any basis on which our judges should be so fettered that they are required to impose minimum terms.

“Sentencing must fit the offence, but it must also be flexible according to the characteristics of the offender.”

He also urged the government to “pause before rushing to add yet more offences to the already long list” of terror offences, which he said were “generated often in reaction to major events and in haste”.

Instead, he said: “We do need to encourage investigators and prosecutors to use the full range of current powers at their disposal; which is not to say that they are ignorant of what Parliament has provided, but we do need to see the use of financial, identification, fraud, firearms, public order, offences against the person, and conspiracy offences being added to the indictment, in order to capture the full range of criminality represented by future cases.

“These offences are all tried and tested, they sit solidly within the mass of general crime statutes, and terrorism neither deserves nor requires special treatment in the name of identifying criminal activity and bringing it before our courts.”

Mr Hill also called for “a more proactive role” from government in engaging with Muslim communities where there is “undeniable strength of feeling around the lack of meaningful engagement”.

He concluded by warning that terrorism would “prevail” if national security was “used as a stick to beat down the rights we hold dear”.

“We as a nation must not be terrified, nor must we allow our Parliament to enact measures that might make things worse not better.”