This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Introducing new laws to prosecute extremists would be wrong, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said.

Certain terror offences should carry longer jail terms, QC says Read more

Terrorists who commit modest or middle-ranking offences should not face longer jail terms, Max Hill also suggested.

In a speech in central London, Hill warned against a “kneejerk reaction” to the wave of terrorist attacks on England in recent months as he raised concerns about government plans for new laws.

He questioned proposals announced by Amber Rudd, the home secretary, to impose jail terms of up to 15 years on people who repeatedly viewed terrorist content online.

Hill said “very careful work” would be required to stop innocent people being caught up by the offence.

Theresa May declared “enough is enough” as England was left reeling from a spate of atrocities this year and vowed to crack down on extremism.

Hill said “thought without action” must not be criminalised. “While we can all agree that there should be nowhere for real terrorists to hide, we should also agree that legislating in the name of terrorism when the targeted activity is not actually terrorism would be quite wrong.

“We do not, and should not criminalise thought without action or preparation for action. Thought with steps towards action can be terrorism. Thought without action or preparation for action may be extremism, but it is not terrorism.”

The barrister told the human rights group Justice that terrorism sentences had been toughened up significantly over the past 30 years, but suggested political desire rather than need was behind the changes in less serious cases.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Max Hill QC, who says national security must not be ‘used as a stick to beat down the rights we hold dear’. Photograph: Home Office/PA

“I do not contend that this was an unnecessary shift, in relation to the most serious cases, but it begs the question whether in more modest or middle-ground terrorist offences there is a real need – as opposed to a political desire – to mark the offenders with far longer terms in jail,” he said.

A number of offences were used rarely so trimming some of the legislation would “be a good thing”, Hill added.

“In general, I would suggest that our legislators, parliament, have provided for just about every descriptive action in relation to terrorism, so we should pause before rushing to add yet more offences to the already long list,” he said.

Hill said he was often told there was “one law for Muslims and another for the rest”, adding: “Many feel that charging the killer of Jo Cox MP with murder, rather than a specific terrorist offence, was evidence of ‘one law for some, another for the rest’.”

The government must take a more proactive role to speak to Muslim communities, and not only at a time when things have gone wrong, Hill advised.

France’s decision to declare a state of emergency after repeated terrorist attacks was “not correct” and the UK must avoid such a move, he said. National security must not be “used as a stick to beat down the rights we hold dear”.

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

A No 10 spokeswoman said: “As we have seen painfully in the UK this year, we face an unpredictable threat from terrorism. We have to tackle the ideologies that drive or inspire these kinds of attacks.

“That is why we are doing things like establishing a new commission on countering extremism to help expose all forms of extremism and division and to challenge those who preach hate.

“What we want to do is to send a clear message that we will not tolerate terrorism, those who help radicalise terrorists with their extremist views, or those who turn a blind eye to terrorist activity.”