NI: N Ireland: Lloyd Report Implementation
01 March 1997
The Northern Ireland Office is moving quickly to implement certain provisions recommended by the Lloyd Report (see Statewatch, vol 7 no 1). The supposed basis of the Report was to consider what permanent counter terrorist legislation, if any, would be desirable for the UK assuming existing "emergency" laws were no longer required in relation to Ireland. Home Secretary Michael Howard gave the government's formal response to the Report in answer to a parliamentary question on 20 February. He said, "in the continuing absence of a lasting peace we believe that it is too early to reach a firm view on possible fundamental legislative change". This seemed to indicate no immediate action, but Howard then went on to say that the government intend to "bring forward in due course proposals to strengthen existing controls on terrorist finances, along the lines of Lord Lloyd's very helpful analysis. These proposals will include extending existing controls more widely to international terrorism".
Lloyd made a number of detailed recommendations concerning the seizure and forfeiture of funds. He proposed that the police should have the facility to go to a judge before a suspect has been arrested for an order to seize a suspect's funds. While this could be seen as a direct infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights (which covers the "peaceful enjoyment of possessions") Lloyd felt that careful legal drafting could get round this. He goes on, "I recognise that the introduction of such a power would be a very radical step... [but] the power would be justified because of the paramount need to neutralise terrorist funding before the terrorist offence is committed".
Lloyd also proposed that a conviction for any "terrorist offence" should result in the confiscation of "all identifiable funds in the control of the offender at the time of his arrest". To prevent the confiscation, the onus would be on the convicted person to take a civil action to prove that the origin of the funds was not criminal.
Current powers under the PTA prohibit the giving and receipt of funds for proscribed organisations and allow for the seizure of a proscribed organisations' assets. Such powers will apply to "overseas terrorism", once the power to proscribe organisations is extended to overseas groups.
Another significant recommendation of Lloyd's is that the police should be given the power to seize cash from a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that "the cash is for use in terrorism". This is similar to the power available to customs officers under the Drug Trafficking Act which allows them to seize cash amounts exceeding ?10,000. Lloyd says that police officers should confiscate the cash and that the threshold amount should be just ?2,500.
Overall, Lloyd presents very little evidence to justify either the existing powers or the proposed new ones. He is "almost certain" that the powers have a deterrent effect, thereby reducing the flow of funds to proscribed organisations. Certainly, few convictions have been obtained under the existing powers. Lloyd reports that in the last ten years, only five people have been charged in Britain with "giving or receiving funds or property for terrorism", resulting in three convictions. In Northern Ireland 173 people were so charged, but somewhat mysteriously, the number of those convicted is not known.