Committee publication · Correspondence · 17 July 2025 · HC 540
Letter, dated 9 July 2025, from Jonathan Hall KC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to Mr Speaker
From: Speaker's Conference (2024)
Inquiry: Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections
Summary
Jonathan Hall KC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, writes to the Speaker outlining how existing terrorism legislation can be applied to threats against MPs without requiring new laws. He illustrates the width of the terrorism definition via hypothetical cases (rape threats with doxxing; coordinated online campaigns targeting MPs over political votes), explains the practical mechanisms for escalating such cases to counter-terrorism investigation, and sets out potential benefits (specialist investigators, higher sentences, deterrent effect) and risks (inflated expectations, resource diversion, allegations of two-tier policing).
Key findings
- Existing Terrorism Act 2000 section 1 already covers threats of serious violence without requiring actual violence, including tweets, if made to influence government or intimidate the public for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
- No legislative change is needed; the decision to investigate threats to MPs as terrorism rests with the Senior National Coordinator of Counter Terrorism Policing, based on discretionary judgment.
- Hall proposes that 'any coordinated online or coordinated real life attempt to intimidate MPs with threats of violence should at least be considered for investigation as terrorism', especially where threats are immediate or campaigns are growing.
- Terrorist classification would enable access to specialist Counter-Terrorism Police investigators, intelligence agency support, and stronger legal grounds for obtaining subscriber and online history data from overseas tech companies.
- Risks include ratcheted public expectations, diversion of resources to low-capability individuals, and allegations of special treatment for MPs amounting to 'two-tier policing'.
Tone
FactualTopics
Key actors
Jonathan Hall KC, Rt Hon. Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, Lord Carlile, Senior National Coordinator of Counter Terrorism Policing, Counter-Terrorism Policing, Intelligence agencies
Notable line
“… any, legislative change would be required to enable this? A: None. 3 Q: What criteria or thresholds might be used to determine whether a threat constitutes terrorism and merits being investigated …”
Key Quotes
“Under section 1 Terrorism Act 2000, a tweet can qualify as terrorism because terrorism is the use or threat of action involving serious violence against a person.”
“What is required in practice is a decision by the Senior National Coordinator of the Counter Terrorism Policing network that it is appropriate to investigate a matter as terrorism.”
“I would suggest any coordinated online or coordinated real life attempt to intimidate MPs with threats of violence should at least be considered for investigation as terrorism, in particular where the threat is or appears to be very immediate, or where a campaign is growing …”
“The potential benefits are quicker and more effective investigations with all the resources of expert police (supported by the intelligence agencies) and expert prosecutors.”
“The potential risks are that expectation are ratcheted too high that there will be a terrorist investigation in every case of an online threat (which is not possible); that investigations may scoop up a lot of hapless individuals who lack any capability, diverting resources from more genuine threats to the public; and that there will be allegations of special treatment for MPs and two-tier policing.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗