These deficiencies are due largely to limitations placed on the law's review by the government. First, the terms of reference incorporated the assumption that a continuing need exists for antiterrorist laws. Second, the review was limited to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and excluded the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The Jellicoe Report does recognize that the required annual parliamentary review is an empty ritual, and suggests that the act be renewed no more than five times without an independent review. With regard to police powers, the report thoroughly examines the vital issue of treatment in custody, but fails to implement or even consider limitations necessary to achieve fairness in areas such as grounds for detention and reasons for extending the allowable detention period. The report fails to address the effectiveness of port controls and limitation on these powers, but instead focuses on the lack of uniformity in the exercise of port controls and laxity displayed at some ports. Finally, the report does not mention the act's special search powers. Excluding suspects can prevent terrorism if two conditions are established: that the suspect will become involved in terrorism and that removal will diminish his or her ability to engage in terrorism in a new residence. The report submits that the act fails to satisfy these criteria, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland. The report admits that proscription of terrorist groups is presentational rather than practical, but still claims some beneficial effects. However, the present system is often a superfluous response and creates political offenses. Other topics inadequately addressed by the report include the offenses of contributing to terrorist groups and withholding information about terrorism. The essay contains 44 footnotes.