Premium
The Quest for a Satisfactory Definition of Terrorism: R v G ul
Author(s) -
Greene Alan
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the modern law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.37
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 1468-2230
pISSN - 0026-7961
DOI - 10.1111/1468-2230.12090
Subject(s) - terrorism , argument (complex analysis) , political science , discretion , state (computer science) , law , legislation , counter terrorism , law and economics , economics , computer science , medicine , algorithm
The UK S upreme C ourt judgment in R v G ul presented a unique opportunity for a judicial appraisal of the definition of terrorism contained in section 1 of the T errorism A ct 2000. While the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful in his challenge, the S upreme C ourt's rejection of the state's argument that reliance on prosecutorial discretion could mitigate certain absurd applications of the section 1 definition of terrorism, eg the labelling of acts of UK or other military forces as terrorist, has potentially wide‐raging implications for the UK 's counter‐terrorism measures. In addition, the powerful obiter dictum arguing in favour of a reform of this definition and a ‘root‐and‐branch’ review of counter‐terrorism legislation is a strong rebuke of recent high profile misapplications of such powers.