Posted: December 17th, 2014

Critically evaluation the compatibility of anti- terror legislation with specific reference the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 and its impact on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1998.

Critically evaluation the compatibility of anti- terror legislation with specific reference the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 and its impact

on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1998.

Order Description

I do not see what the structure of your project is. You need to set this out chapter by chapter. Furthermore, you have not referred to any cases on TPIMs. I suggest

that you do a search on this.

It is important that you get a clear structure. I do not know how you are going to use the cases you do refer to – you must make this clear in your structure.

Remember the focus of the dissertation is on TPIMs and therefore you must show how the cases you refer to relate to TPIMs and indeed how they relate to your title.

1. Title page
Critically evaluation the compatibility of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1998.
2. Abstract
Summary of the research: What I did and why: The research critically evaluates to what extent anti-terrorism measures (TPMI) circumvent the criminal justice to

infringe Article 5 ECHR on the right to liberty and security of the person, and whether such measures are justified.
3. Acknowledgements
4. Contents, which may include any relevant statistical data/figures
5. Introduction
The introduction will expand on the abstract, identify question/problems which have been addressed.
6 Chapters
How I conducted the research for example the materials –
Literature Review
To obtain an overview of the material, then focus in on those aspects which have particular relevance.
Primary and Secondary data will be reviewed initially through a range of information sources such as the West law, Lexus to obtain an academic perspective, journals,

case law and statue. In addition further research is undertaken by reading academic text books.
Journals/Books
Ewing K, and Tham J-C, ‘The continuing futility of the Human Rights Act’ [2008] PL 668, Fenwick H, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (4th edn, Routledge-Cavendish

2007), Foster S, Human Rights and Civil Liberties (3rd edn, Pearson Education Ltd 2011)Horne A, and Walker C, ‘Lessons learned from political constitutionalism?

Comparing the enactment of control orders and terrorism prevention measures by the UK Parliament’ [2014]
Cases Analysis
A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, Chahal v UK (App No 22414/93) [1997] EHRR 413, Cruz Varas v Sweden [1992], D v United Kingdom

[2002] 24 EHRR 423, Ireland v United Kingdom [1979-80] 2 EHRR 25, JJ and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 3 WLR 642, N v United Kingdom

[2008] 47 EHRR 39,
Legislation
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, The Human Rights Act 1998, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

8. Conclusions
Conclusion as to the main points that have emerged and what it means.
9. References
10. Appendices

My proposal is as follows;

A critical evaluation of the compatibility of recent anti-terrorism legislation with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Analyse the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA) which introduced “control orders” to the UK’s counter terrorism. Control orders place “obligations” on a on

individual with a view to “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism” and were devised as a means of restricting the liberty of terror suspects without

requiring the UK to formally derogate from Article 5 ECHR, which protects the right to liberty and security of the person.

The PTA conferred powers on to the Home Secretary to make control orders based on “reasonable grounds” for suspecting involvement in terrorist-related activity.

Views from academics who maintained that control orders were comparable to house arrest, and supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The important case of JJ and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Lords of Appeal ruled that so-called “non-detrogating” control orders were, in

that instance, a breach of Article 5 ECHR. The Secretary of State deemed to have, prima facie, derogated from Article 5 ECHR without authority.

The Coalition government who passed the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (TPIM). The TPIM repealed the PTA, abolishing control orders, while

permitting the imposition of “specified terrorism and investigation measures” on an individual believed to be involved in “terrorism-related activity”.

Where both statutes are essentially pre-emptive in nature and only apply where there is insufficient proof to directly prosecute the individual suspected of

involvement in terrorism-related activity.

Therefore the research will critically evaluates to what extent anti-terrorism measures circumvent established criminal justice, infringing on the right to liberty and

security of the person, and whether such measures are justified the perceived threat of terrorist attack.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂