Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has devised plans that would mean children arrested for lower-level terror offences could be dealt with using child-specific orders as an alternative to existing law.
Under the plans, offenders could either be prosecuted, and face imprisonment, or accept behavioural conditions, such as limitations on access to certain devices or online material.
The proposals follow growing concerns about children being radicalised by extremists (see box). Home Office data shows there was a three per cent increase in under-18s arrested for counter terrorism last year.
Hall, a Kings Counsel since 2014, was appointed as independent reviewer by the Home Secretary in 2019 and was reappointed in 2022 for a three-year term.
What key factors influenced your decision to recommend a specific order for children?
My interest was prompted by statistics and anecdote. I could see that the terrorism-related arrest rates for children had shot up in the last couple of years, and had hit about 20 per year, far more than previously.
I was aware from my regular discussions with counter-terrorism police officers that child arrests had become a very regular feature and were causing disquiet. This was a cohort that counter-terrorism police were less used to dealing with, where the traditional criminal justice tools didn't seem quite right.
What processes did you follow in drawing up your recommendations to government?
I identified a gap in how to respond to children who had been arrested for terrorism. In the early stages, I also looked at individuals with mental ill health or neurodivergence who were coming across the counter terrorism radar, and many of these were also children. I spoke to a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists, but ultimately I thought that any bespoke legislative solution would only be appropriate for children because the boundary between childhood and adulthood is clear, whereas the nature and effect of poor mental health or neurodivergence was less easy to reflect in legislation. I spoke very widely with civil society groups, lawyers, government officials, and attended meetings of a police working group.
What alternatives to diverting young offenders away from the justice system did you consider?
I looked at all current legal measures – those which were part of the criminal justice system, or direct alternatives (such as conditional cautions), or purely civil (such as antisocial behaviour injunctions). I also road-tested a variety of potential alternatives.
I realised early on that the issue I needed to look at was not so much diverting children away from being arrested – although obviously that's desirable – but what to do after arrest. Sometimes, for public safety reasons, counter-terrorism police will have little option but to carry out arrest and search in cases involving children. If it transpires, as it often does, that expressions of intended violence were never likely to translate into real world violence, there is then the question of what to do. There wasn't anything that really fitted the bill.
Some campaigners say terrorism cases often involve the grooming and exploitation of young people with mental health problems and other difficulties. How will the new plans ensure that group is sufficiently protected?
Counter-terrorism legislation is never going to be the solution to social problems. Positive changes for lonely, isolated children, who may end up going down the online terrrorism rabbit hole, can only come from families, local authorities, charities, schools and wider society. But counter-terrorism legislation can and should be adapted for children so that it avoids any particularly adverse or unintended consequences. For example, where children have been arrested for terrorism offences, it's important that criminal justice measures do not squeeze out the possibility of early intervention and support.
Are children with special educational needs and neurodivergence more susceptible to extremists?
There is compelling research and anecdotal evidence that people with autism can become fixated on special interests. If you combine autism with youth and social isolation, there is a risk that, in some cases, time online will lead to a fixation on violent ideologies or cultures. That appears to be a pattern with young people who have been arrested for terrorism in recent years. I'm slightly wary about the passive grooming model. It does happen that children are deliberately corrupted and drawn into terrorism by adults or other children, but so does self-radicalisation.
Do the plans give them extra protections?
My suggestions are not specific to children with special needs or neurodivergence, but I think they would have particular relevance. In many cases these children are only considered a terrorist risk because of their online activities, and by restricting or controlling their internet access and providing support which they may have been lacking, it may be possible for them to move on entirely.
RHIANAN RUDD CASE
In 2020, Rhianan Rudd, then aged 15, was charged with terrorism offences after accessing extreme right-wing content online.
The teenager waited more than six months for a charging decision which was later dropped after a Home Office investigation found that she had been exploited by American extremist Christopher Cook and halted prosecution in December 2021.
However, Rhianan, who was also diagnosed as autistic, was found hanged at a children's home in May 2022, aged 16.
Her mother has criticised the Home Office response arguing Rhianan should have been “treated as a child that had been groomed and sexually exploited”, not as a possible terrorist.
