On 3 March 2021, the House of Lords debated an amendment that would have required a jury — or at minimum a trial of the issue on admissible evidence — before any offence could be treated as having a terrorist connection. Lord Marks described, in terms, the exact scenario that has since happened at Woolwich and is now proposed at Preston. The government opposed it. The amendment was defeated 281 to 126.
It converts the argument from “we don’t like this outcome” into “you were told exactly this would happen, and you voted it down.” That is a question a Member of Parliament has to answer rather than deflect.
Hansard is published under the Open Parliament Licence: you may reproduce, adapt and publish it freely, including commercially, with attribution. Quote it in full. Put it on a poster. Read it to camera.
hansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsText/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113
The whole debate as plain text — the cleanest way to pull exact wording without transcription errors. Everything below deep-links into individual contributions on the main page.
Proposed new subsections (1A) and (1B): no terrorist connection unless the defendant admitted it in person in open court, or there was a trial of the issue — determined by a jury unless the court found the interests of justice were better served by a judge alone.
The gold seam. Four passages worth lifting verbatim:
the consequences of a finding of a terrorist connection are devastating for the offender Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames · HL Deb 3 March 2021
Argued the concerns were overstated: judges already exercise sentencing discretion, and the criminal standard applies. Include this. A document that quotes only the objectors looks curated. Quoting the opposing case and then showing what happened is stronger than pretending it was never made.
Labour did not oppose. He preferred the Newton hearing route and confirmed they would abstain. Directly relevant now that a Labour government is applying the provision.
The single most quotable passage in the debate. Find the paragraph beginning “During the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008…”
It records that the government considered putting the terrorist connection to the jury, discussed it with experienced prosecutors, and rejected it — because if the defence disputed whether the conduct fell within the definition of terrorism, that would cause lengthy diversions, divert the prosecution from securing swift justice, and create significantly longer trials.
Read that twice. The stated reason for keeping the question from the jury is that the defence might successfully dispute whether it was terrorism — and that this would take time.
Also in this speech: the s.66 racial-hostility analogy; the endorsement by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, who told the Public Bill Committee this measure would make the most substantial difference to public safety of anything in the Bill; and the two offered safeguards — the judge must state the finding in open court, and it can be appealed.
The closing paragraph is the Burnley case in one sentence: nothing he had heard allowed for the possibility that an offender guilty only of the basic offence, but not of committing it with a terrorist connection, would nevertheless be sentenced on the aggravated basis by a judge who had heard only representations.
Content 126. Not Content 281. Amendment disagreed.
The outputType=Names parameter returns every peer who voted each way. Some are still sitting.
Amend s.69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 so that no offence may be treated as having a terrorist connection unless the defendant admits it in open court or the issue is tried on admissible evidence. The drafting already exists — it is Amendment 1, moved on 3 March 2021, and it has been sitting in the record for five years.