skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 93848 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Jellicoe Report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
Journal: Modern Law Review  Volume:46  Issue:4  Dated:(July 1983)  Pages:484-492
Author(s): C P Walker
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 9
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: The Jellicoe Report remedies some serious defects in Great Britain's 1976 Prevention of Terrorism Act, but undertakes no fundamental reforms and ignores issues such as registration with the police, identity cards, and electronic surveillance.
Abstract: 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.
Index Term(s): Antiterrorist laws; Great Britain/United Kingdom
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=93848

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.