'The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these'.

(Lord Hoffmann - A and others (2005))

a) Explain the UK's legislative response to the threat from terrorism

and

b) Explain and analyse the challenges to these laws in the UK courts.

In the introduction, explain the issues and set out how the question will be answered. The question is asking for an examination of the UK response to terrorism. The quotation raises the question as to whether anti-terrorism laws are necessary in a democratic society and if so, how can these be enforced whilst maintaining human rights and the rule of law. Should protection from terrorism trump human rights?

Structure the essay to answer the question in a clear manner

Before discussing a) and b), it might be useful to explain the general arguments surrounding the use of anti-terror laws; arguments for and against having these laws. If these laws are needed, should they be human rights compliant? And if so, how can laws be measured to ensure this? One way is to use proportionality, e.g. Guidelines given by Lord Lloyd in report to parliament

a) This part of the essay could explain the various anti-terrorism laws and reasons given for them. The essay can focus on specific examples such as the Terrorism Act 2000 (definition and stop and search), 2001 Act (detention) and 2005 Act (control orders). Derogation could be discussed when discussing the 2001 Act. It could also discuss the recent changes in 2011, 2012 and 2015

b) This part of the essay should analyse/criticise these laws and explain the challenges and outcomes of these challenges in the UK Courts –examples that could be used:

• 2000 Act – Gillan (2006) (noting ECtHR decision) – outcome and response of the state (changes to Act), (proportionate?)
• 2001 Act – A and others (2005) (noting ECtHR case A v UK (2009) - outcome and response of state (note derogation points) (changes to Act) (proportionate?)
• 2005 Act - JJ and others (2007), E (2007), AF (no 3) (2009) (noting ECtHR case Av UK (2009) – outcome and state response (changes to Act) (proportionate?)
• recent changes in response to case law, etc., in 2011, 2012 and 2015

Other examples could be used such as asset freezing legislation etc.

The essay should use the arguments of academics, relevant case law and reports (such as the reports of the parliamentary joint committee on human rights and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation).

Conclusions: This should bring the arguments together and evaluate the UK response, concluding as to whether the laws discussed did endanger human rights, democracy and the rule of law (per Lord Hoffman’s observations), and asking if the Courts were correct in either holding or not holding these laws to be disproportionate.