Jonathan Hall KC - Insights from the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

Threat Analyst – Oliver Hair

Hello and welcome back to Totally Terrorism. My name is Oliver Hair, a Threat Analyst at Pool Re. In this episode, we're joined by Jonathan Hall, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and State Threats Legislation. 

Today, I’ll be speaking to Jonathan about what it means to be the Independent Reviewer, the evolving nature of terrorism threat in the UK, as well as Jonathan’s own thoughts on the role of the internet in facilitating terrorism and extremism-related activity in the UK.  

We hope you enjoy this episode of Totally Terrorism, and if you would like to hear future episodes, please subscribe through your streaming app of choice or sign up for our regular updates through poolre.co.uk/signup. 

Jonathan Hall, welcome to Totally Terrorism.

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall

Hello. 

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Thanks very much for coming on the podcast, and for kicking off Season 2. Before we begin, could you give a brief summary of your background, your career to date, and the experiences which may have led you to be speaking with me today?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

So, I'm barrister; I started as a criminal barrister and then my career changed a bit. I got involved in national security work and I started working for the government. I started working for the intelligence agencies. I think the first thing I did was the 7/7 inquests. The barrister who was meant to be acting for MI5, the junior barrister, was pregnant, and I was brought in. I got my security clearance. If you like, that was the break that I had and then after that I worked a lot not just on national security matters, but a huge amount on government work, litigation, and judicial review. So, I suppose it was that aspect of me that when the advert came around, I suppose initially I didn't quite know what to make of it because I realised it would be a big step to leave a very busy practice, litigating in court, and then moving away from that. So, I eventually decided to apply. It was a very long process. My predecessor, David Anderson, I think he was just tapped on the shoulder. I think they recognised his eminence straight out. I went through a long process involving meetings with the Security Minister, the Home Secretary of the day, Sajid Javid, and eventually I was appointed in May 2019.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Sure, so you mentioned there that you first got involved in the worlds of terrorism and national security primarily through the 7/7 inquest. That was a fair time ago and I think it's fair to say that terrorism has perhaps changed quite a bit since then. So, to frame our conversation today, I was wondering if could you outline the current definition of terrorism as you understand it, and then we can go on to explore what your role as Independent Reviewer actually involves?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes, so terrorism has to involve, first of all, an act or a threat of an act that's serious enough. I mean, we tend to think in terms of violence, threats of violence. It does actually also include damage to property and threats to damage of property, but we really think about it as that. There's also damage to a communication system which has been, I think been recently prosecuted; some people were pushing over some 5G masts. But basically, it's about threats of real severity. It's then got to be done in order to influence the government or, and this is the tricky one, to intimidate a population or a section of the population. Now, quite how small that section of population has to go is a moot question. And then thirdly, and I think this is the, sort of the clincher, when it comes to thinking about: is this terrorism? Is this not terrorism? Is, is it being done in order to advance a cause? And the cause has got to be religious, racial, ideological or political. So, those are the three elements of it. It's as, as I'm sure we will discuss, it's quite broad, it catches quite a lot of behaviour, and it's different from other terrorism models in other countries and jurisdictions.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Absolutely. So, a very, very complex and unique definition that captures a range of activities. Thank you for that, and now that we understand the current UK definition of terrorism, could we perhaps go back to your role as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and get perhaps just a broad sense of what that role involves and perhaps how the definition of terrorism comes into that?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall

Yes. Well, it's a really, I mean it is a unique role actually. Although there's an equivalent to it, an almost equivalent to it in Australia, and one that's coming in fact in Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, actually it really stands alone. And I think what makes it stand alone is this weird combination of, on the one hand, getting security information, access to security personnel, having a high security clearance. And on the other hand, being quite outward facing. So the statutory role for me, I'm not, I'm not a judge, I'm not adjudicating on anything, but I'm reviewing and I'm reviewing for Parliament. So I do annual reports, that's actually all my job description says I've got to do reports to Parliament. And then little by little, this role has increased. So, I mentioned David Anderson before, he opened a Twitter account, which may sound sort of not very monumental, but actually it's really big. It allows you to have a sort of voice to engage with the public, to put things out and to publish things. I think one of the things that that I've done just to move the role on a bit more is not only look at old legislation, so looking at whether or not it strikes that balance between on the one hand, effectiveness and on the other hand, you know, striking the right balance for freedoms and personal rights and collective rights, is to look at new legislation. Because if my role is to help inform Parliament, I've always thought if a new terrorism law or national security law is going through Parliament, I might be able to help. Not by giving a sort of political view, but by giving some context or some information. So, I now publish that, and that goes out on Twitter. 

So the role has evolved, but fundamentally it's about informing politicians who might want to revise terrorism legislation, they might have a problem with one of the aspects, or helping them, in my view, to look at scrutinised new proposals being brought forward by the government.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Perfect. That's fantastic and I think, I imagine an incredibly busy role when trying to review legislation but also look forward in the context of a hugely diverse and evolving threat picture and we can come on to, sort of, how that threat has changed in a little bit.

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes. 

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Sorry. Go on. 

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Well, I was going to say, I think it's worth saying I'm not a full-time appointment. Although really the very, very large amount of my working life is spent reviewing terrorism and now state threats, which I'm sure we will come to, I'm a practising barrister. So, I do go to court, and I think that’s important in two senses. One is, I'm not completely beholden to the government, so if I lost this job, I've still got a career to go back to. But secondly, it's quite good to be exposed to the rough and tumble of court life and making arguments and having them challenged and having to put them in front of a judge. So, it's a good discipline as well, which I can then hopefully take to my role.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

So, we've now looked at your role as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, what that involves, as well as the current definition of terrorism here in the UK. I guess my opening and a much broader question would then be, based on that current definition of terrorism, but also your understanding of terrorism threat, why perhaps is terrorism so hard to define at the moment? It’s a question we grapple with here at Pool Re, is an act of violence, terrorism, is it not? In your view, why perhaps is that question being asked more, and why perhaps is the answer less clear than previously?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Well, it it's hard to define at the moment because of the Internet. I think fundamentally the Internet has changed, in my view, everything. I mean, when I came to the job, we were still at the time of peak interest in what was happening in Iraq and Syria. Islamic State had suffered some big reverses on the battlefield but it was still, and is still, obviously a big threat. Before that there was Al Qaeda, there was the first stirrings of the big National Action, Extreme Right-Wing group. But for the last five years, we have just seen terrorism becoming more and more mutated and influenced by what happens online. People aren't organising in the offline world, they're organising online, they're taking their lead from people online, they are following certain patterns online. 

So, for example, there's a whole notion online of Extreme Right-Wing “Saints” who people want to copy; they want to get kill counts, they want to wear the same sorts of clothes. We are also drawing in people who don't look on the face of it, like your traditional terrorist. And the way which I have always looked at it is if you were an MI5 officer or a Counter Terrorism Police officer, you know, you're going in there to deal with, in the old days, the IRA, al Qaeda, and the Islamic State groups who are working in a really covert and tricky way to try and undermine the foundations of society. Now, we're dealing with people, they're dealing with people, who are on the face of it – and certainly are using or threatening violence; they appear to be drawn by some ideology; they seem to be wanting to change the world or influence the government or intimidate a population – but they don't really feel like terrorists. And this is particularly the case with the cohort of children. So, as I'm sure we'll discuss, there's been a lot of arrests of children, the most ever in 2023; 42 children arrested for terrorism offences. 

So, one of the difficulties that we're coming up now is; are the people who fall within the terrorism definition really terrorists or, as I've sometimes said, keyboard warriors? Now, that's different from the other debate, which happens, and which is a sort of important debate, which happens perhaps more on an international face, which is, how do you really define terrorism at all? How do you define terrorism in a way that doesn't allow the authorities, let's assume that they've got some malign intent, just to label their enemies as the bad guys? And some people have always articulated the idea that you should be very strict about the sorts of acts that should fall within terrorism. It might be, for example, hostage taking, or CBRN, or using certain types of methodologies. You might say it's limited to violence against people. You might not want to refer at all to any religious or racial or ideological cause. I think, though, that the UK's definition has proven to be pretty robust. So, I'm sure, like everyone who does my role wants to look at the definition of terrorism, I think ultimately, it's proven comprehensive enough. 

And a good counter example of an approach which hasn't been comprehensive is the American one. The Americans have struggled to really treat Extreme Right-Wing terrorist organisations with the same sort of severity as they do foreign terrorist organisations. We also know that Sweden, for example, that's recently joined NATO, had to change their constitution to allow them to deal with certain terrorist organisations. I'm not saying that our definition is perfect, but it's threat neutral and I think that's a good thing. And it seems to me to be flexible enough, with the crucial caveat that the authorities need to be scrutinised for what they do, because with a wide definition, as we have, that brings a lot of discretion and discretion can be misused.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Absolutely. You've picked up on a range of points in that answer that I want to explore more, whether that be the role of the internet, or the increase in young adults and children we're seeing caught up in terrorist activity. But first of all, I’d like to pick up on the theme of what a terrorist looks like, what they do, and perhaps what they believe in having changed fundamentally or having become slightly more confused in recent years. 

In a recent statement, if I may, you said that over the last five years, CT officials have had to confront an emerging trend of individuals driven by personal vulnerability, rather than, perhaps, your more traditional religious, political, racial, or ideological cause. 

Could you expand on what you mean by personal vulnerability and how that plays out in the type of offenders we're seeing?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Autism is really the striking personal vulnerability. Now, people with autism are different, everyone is different. But there was some research done by the Ministry of Justice. They looked at all convicted terrorist prisoners who had had a particular risk assessment done and for those people who had been mainly recruited or principally recruited online or self-radicalised online, which is now a very, very large percentage, if not the entire percentage of the children cohort, there was an enormous prevalence of autism.

It's very difficult to put statistics on this. There are no official statistics about it and it's quite hard where someone who has autism may not have been diagnosed and you wouldn't want to create official statistics based upon officer impression. Although, I do speak to a lot of police and that is their impression, and it's supported by that Ministry of Justice research. So that's principally what I'm talking about, but there's also people with poor mental health, personality disorders. I would just slightly caveat what I'm saying by acknowledging that we are more conscious of these phenomena now, it is possible that some of those traits would been present in previous terrorists if we'd had the opportunity to carry out those investigations. And I don't want to suggest that the presence of personal vulnerability removes agency because there are people who have committed very serious terrorist, even online terrorist offences, and I'll give you an example of that; Daniel Harris was 19, but was autistic, his propaganda that he created was so powerful it inspired the Buffalo, New York attack and the Bratislava gay bar attack. So, some of this propaganda and some of this offending can be very, very serious indeed.

But having said all that, it is a fact that more children are being arrested. It is certainly my knowledge of speaking to counterterrorism police and their investigations that autism and personal vulnerabilities is coming up more and more. It's even crept into some of the more, or what you might call, more dangerous casework. So, in the UK, there's something called a Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measure, which is a really, really rare measure that's put on people who, for whatever reason, can't be prosecuted. For example, let's say there’s intelligence that can't be fully revealed, which says they're about to carry out an attack. Now, there are one or two people at this stage of the year who are on these sorts of things; that now includes people with personal vulnerabilities. And so, one of the recommendations I, and the government, has taken this up rightly, is that where you're looking at managing these people, it's important to have a psychologist or a psychiatrist in the room. 

Sometimes, when people are manifesting terrorist risk, the only way of dealing with them is not simply through arrest and prosecution charge. There will sometimes be other ways of dealing with them and to take a very extreme example, if someone has some sort of psychosis and when they are ill and they're not taking their medicine, they are full of Islamic State fantasy, they're going to kill someone; one of the ways of dealing with the risk that they present, maybe, is to make sure they take their medicine.

And so, what you'll find now is that there are intermediary bodies, something called the Clinical Consultancy Service, which now works hand in glove with counterterrorism police, that tries to see if there are medical pathways to deal with the risk. I mean, I think the, just thinking about the bigger picture about terrorism; terrorism is really about risk management. Now, there will be cases where people carry out completed terrorism attacks and there you're looking at all the standard reasons for prosecution and punishment, you know, it's got to be seen in the public domain that the authorities are taking it seriously. There's got to be punishment for the sake of retribution, as well as deterrence, as well as incapacitation. But where threat, where attacks haven't taken place, the point of terrorism legislation in this country is to allow the authorities to intervene earlier and the purpose of that is to increase the opportunity for risk management. One way of doing that is through prison, but that may not be the only effective way of doing it.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

That’s fascinating and I think that question over or perhaps not even a question, just the reality that mental health is cropping up more and more in these investigations is really interesting. I think though, it also raises a very difficult question over whether, if mental health is increasingly evident in certain cases of terrorist activity, whether that be plots, harmful online content or successful attacks, from your point of view, do you think mental health therefore needs to be considered more often a part of terrorism and a more intrinsic part of terrorism? 

We have previously seen attacks that look like terrorism and are conducted for example, using the same weaponry and techniques, but are instead often found to be a case of mental health and vulnerability. If this is the case, going forward, more frequently, do you think there is value in recognising a terrorist attack as motivated chiefly by mental health issues, rather than perhaps just recognising the traditional ideologies we’re more used to seeing?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

No, I wouldn't agree that you would strip out the requirement for pursuing a cause from the terrorism definition. And I would be, I'd be very hostile to the idea of saying that as long as someone carries out an attack and they're trying to intimidate the public, if there's the presence of mental health or autism, that should be treated as terrorism. I mean, I think that would be completely wrong headed and I think reiterate that people with mental health, with poor mental health or with autism or neurodivergence, are different from one another. It's quite hard to generalise how someone will, or to leap to the conclusion that because someone has got the presence of autism, that may be a risk. I mean, in certain circumstances actually autism may be a protective factor. Maybe people are much more law abiding and wanting to play by the rules, so I would definitely steer clear of that. I don't think it's right to say that you should be taken out of the casework because you are autistic. I mean, as I say, there will be some cases where people have all the agency that they need to commit a terrorism offence. It may be that there's that aspect of their life which has led them to become obsessed by a particular ideology. But if they carry out a mass casualty attack, subject to diminished responsibility and insanity, which are very rare indeed, I would expect those cases to be prosecuted as terrorism.

But, going back to the point I made about risk management, where you do find in the say, PREVENT caseload, people who've got those sorts of personal vulnerabilities, it may be that that is the route to dealing with their risk, as well as prosecution, or instead of prosecution.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Sure. Thank you very much. If we move on now to a linked subject surrounding the Internet, but again going back to that, sort of, vulnerability of younger adults or children. You have recently also been quoted in saying that boys use of the Internet, or you've actually said the “internet's use of boys”, is the most dynamic aspect affecting terrorism and extremism here in Great Britain.

Could you expand on that a bit and perhaps again feed us a bit more information about how the Internet is facilitating these boys or younger adults that we are seeing becoming more frequently involved in this kind of stuff? 

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes, so, Terrorgram Collective is the most recently proscribed organisation in the UK and was proscribed in May of this year. It's extraordinarily named in tribute to the social media platform Telegram. Now, on Terrorgram, so on, on the channels, on Telegram that the Terrorgram Collective control, you will see, and there was an indictment in the US yesterday which spells that out in great detail, magazines for what they call “Saints”. And Saints are those people who carried out Extreme Right-Wing attacks against black people, gay people, Muslims, Jews, who did it and advertised it in advance, often the subject of these videos and the good example would be the Christchurch attacks. If someone, a live stream shooter, wearing a particular sort of gear, and people will say that Brenton Tarrant is a Saint, and you will see a magazine cover created on the internet with 20 or 30 Saints. 

That does not exist in the real world. You do not see people on street corners, or at Speakers Corner, outside tube stations, saying “become a Saint”. You don't read it in books, you don't see it on the television. It's a pure internet phenomenon. 

Now, through the power of the internet, to link disparate individuals, people have been able to come together and find common cause, unfortunately, in extremely transgressive things, which they wouldn't have the opportunity to do in real life. So, the internet is fundamental, in my view, to the way that terrorism is changing. The reason I mentioned boys is that boys seem to be drawn to, or certain boys seem to be drawn to, transgression and risk and risky behaviour, saying really bad stuff online is a thrill for boys. It's particularly a thrill for boys who are otherwise lonely, so many, many of the people who are drawn into the internet, into offending on the internet, have no other way of feeling meaningful in life. They are in their bedrooms. They do not have friends, but they're full of testosterone and they want to be noticed and valued. And unfortunately, the internet provides a platform for that.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

And, taking that point, I completely agree that kind of vulnerable, lonely, disenfranchised young adults, particularly boys, may find kind of a sense of power or belonging in kind of these online forums. How does that translate would you say into real-world threat? How much of a threat is the kind of radicalization of young adults online from a real-world terrorism point of view?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes, I mean this is a brilliant question. So, I'm pretty confident there has not been a terrorist attack by an Extreme Right-Wing radicalised child. So, for whatever reason the authorities have managed to intervene now, you could say from that, actually the risk is exaggerated. But, I mean knowing about these cases and knowing how they present and knowing how advanced some of these plots were, I don't think you can say that these are risk free. 

If you look across to America, with the availability of guns, I think it's completely obvious, isn't it, that certain people, if they get their hands on a weapon of the sort that they really like, they want to be like Neo in The Matrix, they want to be going, pulling some AK47 or assault rival out of their leather jackets. If that cohort was to get their hands on weapons, then I think that risk would be greater. 

One of the most important counterterrorism measures in the UK is stopping guns being in circulation. It's of interest, isn't it, that this cohort, the Extreme Right-Wing in particular – I can't explain why it's not so much the case for Islamist extremism – but it is for the Extreme Right-Wing, they want to build 3D printed guns, which speaks to the absence of guns but also the importance of guns, to the way, the manner in which, they want to carry out attacks. And it's worth emphasising, there's something about much of the Extreme Right-Wing, as well as being full of ideology and quite odd ideology, it's also quite a lot about the aesthetic. It's about wanting to copy, and I went and talked about that thing about Saints. People will carry out attacks in a way that is a deliberate tribute to the way in which previous attacks were carried out.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

And I guess that kind of feeds back into that idea of belonging, power, sainthood, the young, disenfranchised teenager wanting to be that supposed hero who has been, kind of, advertised or gamified almost online.

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes. And I think the same must be true as a matter of common sense, to young people who get drawn to Islamist terrorism as well, the same desire to belong, the internet gives the ability to link up if we look at the whole Islamic State phenomenon, I mean that was not obviously just an Internet thing, because people did go to Iraq and Syria and they did try and create a caliphate. But the way in which that was communicated and in particular the way in which it was shown online as a perfect state, or one involving this rather sort of pure but gory violence, it seems to have been attractive to people, that all came through the internet as well.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Sure. That's fascinating. I think if we could maybe flip the question on its head, we've spoken a lot about there about kind of the active targeting or at least marketing of ideology and feeding vulnerable individuals with this information online through collectives as that Terrorgram Collective has being named. Could we speak now about the lack of information online and how that's also perhaps a driver of, I don't know, radicalization, violence, and then at the worst case, terrorism? 

You've recently been quoted in the context of the riots here in the UK that an “information vacuum” online, rather than targeted propaganda, led to individuals going out on the streets and conducting, in certain cases, some pretty extreme violence, could you expand on that for us?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes. Well, I mean, it goes back to the online, doesn't it? People now go online to find out really, really important information to them. So, if you've had an attack like the Southport massacre, people quite reasonably want to know what was going on and the fastest, and the most convenient way is to go to their phones and to look at whatever social media feed they've got.

If you don't have information about something about the attack, people will speculate, and as we know, as a matter of fact, someone said it was someone called Alex Sani, who is supposedly a person who arrived in a small boat, and I can't say what was in the minds of the attackers, but it seems quite plausible that that would have fed some of the disorder.

I'm fascinated by disinformation, not because of the risk that it can lead to rioting, as we saw, but also from a state threats perspective, people are often quite rightly conscious that manipulating information online would be a way to destabilise society. And I mean, I would have thought that Russia would have been very well aware of how what happened online appeared to drive what happened offline. Fortunately, what was happening wasn't just before an election. But you can imagine a situation in which something did happen like that, and an absence of information could then allow people, certain bad actors, to put in disinformation, and that could have certain real-world consequences which could affect the way in which, for example, an election is conducted. 

So, the point that I was fundamentally making is that, in the world of immediate access to information, just saying nothing is not a remedy, and that as much information as possible needs to be put into public domain. The tricky issue is really when the attacker lives. If an attacker dies in an attack, then there are no risks about, I mean, assuming the police have done their investigations, there are no risks about fair trial.

It's quite right that you don't want to put information in the public domain that could damage a fair trial, but in my view, you need to make sure that you look at the precise circumstances of the case and put as much information into the public domain as you possibly can, in a neutral and sober way, without prejudicing the trial. 

I mean, we are in an era where there is an anxiety. We have institutions which I think need to continue to earn trust, that includes the police, includes the public broadcasters, includes the government, because ultimately when there is disinformation, someone is actually going to have to say what is disinformation. I mean it's very hard, but as long as we have trusted and sober and neutral voices giving information, for example, the police in the wake of an attack, I think it's less likely, although many people will try, it's less likely, that those really distorted disinformation narratives will get so much fever pitch and purchase.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Fantastic, I think it's really, really interesting and I think it segways perfectly through that misinformation point to our, kind of, next segment in the podcast, which is talking about your appointment as Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation. Could you perhaps give us again an overall summary of what that role entails and perhaps how it differs to your role as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes, it goes back to the Edward Snowden case. Edward Snowden, as you know, made reported revelations of highly, highly sensitive classified information, purportedly that was on the person of someone called David Miranda who was going through an airport, and the authorities wanted to stop this information leaving the country. They used counterterrorism powers, and although the courts ultimately said that that use of counterterrorism powers was acceptable, it was felt there was a bit of a gap. 

So, in 2019, the government brought in powers to allow people to be stopped at borders and questioned, and searched, to stop hostile state activity. Now we are, of course, in an era where we're increasingly aware of hostile states. Then in 2023, the National Security Act 2023 was passed. That was something that the intelligence agencies had long been asking for because of the increased aggression of Russia, the increased aggression of Iran, the more and more assertive role of China, involving things like theft of industrial secrets. 

So, this new legislation came in and whilst that was going through Parliament, Parliament secured an amendment that there should be someone reviewing legislation in the same way as I review terrorism legislation. So, that's my role, again, I'm going to do reports on that 2019 legislation, I'm going to do reports on the 2023 legislation, and as far as possible, although there are differences, I'm going try and conduct the role in the same way as I do with terrorism, which is: I'll be as open as possible, I will speak to the media if there are amendments going through Parliament, I will write notes about them.

I think there are two differences to note. One is, the threat picture is different in the sense that, hostile states are capable, and I don't want in the work that I do to give a recipe to hostile states as to how to get around legislation. And that's something obviously I'm going to think about. The second thing is that, as part of this role, I do have briefings from, and access to people, and information. I don't think frankly, that if someone was to listen to me in, say, Russia or China, they would see me as an independent person, which I am. They would probably see me as a government spokesman. So, I need to be careful that in the way in which I express myself, I don't appear to be saying something on behalf of the government and that I maintain, at all stage, my independent posture.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Absolutely. That's fascinating. And I think there's a really unique and interesting position you're in having both those roles at the same time. You mentioned there that one of the main differences between the roles is that the threat picture is different and that state actors are far more capable actors than non-state terrorist actors here in the UK. What then, if we explore the role of states in terrorist activity, or at least the linkages between state actors and terrorism activity, as we traditionally understand it?

Could you expand on kind of your understanding of perhaps from both a threat point of view what that means to the UK, but also from a legislative point of view, how you split out the use of, let's say, third party proxies or unassuming actors acting on behalf of a more capable state actor?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Yes, I mean, the first thing to remember is that all of the most deadly terrorist organisations, I say all, almost all of them, have had some sort of state sponsorship. There is an academic called Professor Dan Byman of Washington State University who's written a fantastic book called “Deadly Connections”. And he makes the point which we all remember now because of the events of the 7th of October, that terrorist organisations that have got state backing are ultimately more capable. They have the money, they have the know-how. And so Hamas, funded by Iran, is a more capable organisation for that reason, the same with Hezbollah. So there have always been links and to some extent weaker countries which haven't had the ability to use force overseas in a conventional military sense, have always used terrorist organisations as a sort of proxy, in a way of conducting their own foreign policy, sometimes aggressively. So, I think it's worth having that context, this is nothing new. 

In terms of the overlap, I think it's completely fascinating. I think it is almost inevitable, isn't it, that if you are a country like Russia, that you will use as many proxies as you can. It allows deniability. It means it's perhaps harder to crack down on, and to some extent, after the expulsion of so many intelligence officers from the UK in the wake of Salisbury and in other parts of the world, it's harder for Russia to act directly, and therefore it's more likely, isn't it, that they will ask people to act on their behalf, and some of those people could be terrorist organisations as well.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Yeah, that's really interesting and leads quite nicely into my next question. I would argue that terrorism threat, generally, is far better understood, or at least acknowledged within the general public, in comparison to state threat. It's more traditional, it's on screen, everyone, for example, remembers 9/11. But state threats I think is something within the media, or in the public's consciousness, that's relatively new and perhaps misunderstood. Would you agree with that? In your view, is state threat something then much broader than probably firstly, the general public understand, but also far broader compared to understandings of terrorism?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

For terrorism, I think we can think quite simply, but not inaccurately about attacks, with guns or knives or vans or bombs. The domain of state threats is much, much wider, because, in particular, it includes the information domain. So, a national security episode could be Russian sponsored disinformation online. Or it could be a long-term Chinese influence operation, which is designed to get a member of the legislature to vote in a particular way. These are not flash bang incidents. They can take place over a very long time. And I mean, one of the aspects of the legislation is that it, if you like it, it requires police and prosecutors to look at so many parts of life, including, as I say, what goes online, what politicians are saying and doing, that you need to be really careful, again, that the legislation doesn't go too far. 

The fundamental difficulty with the state threats piece, and I think this is different from national security, is that we do want to live in an open society, Britain has got an open economy, we do have an open information domain, we have free speech. How do you reconcile that with the fact that, not just the risk, but the fact that, open posture towards money, towards people, towards languages, towards expression, will be exploited by hostile states? So, striking that balance is at the sort of heart of the state threats legislation.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Is it a fair question, if we are to say that state threat is so much broader, that the UK perhaps is much better prepared, or has a better understanding of, terrorism than state threats?  Where is the UK, at the moment, in terms of our understanding of the state threat landscape?

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Well, I think we should never be too complacent about anything. I mean, you've talked about understanding of terrorism, the other observation I'd make about terrorism before I come onto state threats is, terrorism seems to change an awful lot. So, the IRA is different from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was obsessed about transportation bombs and emirs. Islamic State introduced what some people will call this “franchise model”. You didn't really have to know much about Islamic State, as long as you said, ‘I'm doing this for Islamic State. 

Then we had National Action which seemed to be like a sort of real-world Hitler-ish type grouping. Then you get to the Extreme Right-Wing and you're starting to get into this more exotic stuff. As you know, there's some terrorist organisations that use a lot of child sex abuse material in order to desensitise themselves for the coming race war. This is fundamentally different from people sitting in caves in Afghanistan and fundamentally different from people sitting on cold benches in the UDA, or on behalf of the IRA. 

So, terrorism changes enormously, and we don't really know, do we, how terrorism is going to change again. It's quite possible that we will be taken aback by something and so I wouldn't want anyone to think that we understand terrorism so well. I think with state threats, the fact is that you've got more coordinated actors and people who do wish the UK harm will be studying the whole time, and I suppose to some extent more capable. Also, it’s not a problem that's going to go away, terrorism. If you're a terrorist group, you proscribe them. And the point about proscription is that you want them to dissipate.

States we can't ask to dissipate. There will always be a Russia, one hopes that Russia will change its approach, but there will always be a Russia and there will always be an FSB. There will always be a China. So, the approach is going to be different, and they will have, this may be a bit different from certain terrorist organisations and certain terrorists, a very long-term view which is going to encompass maybe decades.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

It's absolutely fascinating and I’m just going to pick up for a final question if I can? I take your point that terrorism changes every single day, if not minute, and that we can't be kind of complacent about thinking we know at all. We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, what event will cause kind of a sudden driver of terrorism. 

But what we do tend to do on Totally Terrorism, if I can, is ask our guests where they see terrorism threat going in let's say the next 5 to 10 years. So, if I could ask you 2 questions, what do you currently consider to be the biggest terrorism threat in the UK? That can be actor or that can be driver. But also, where you see the threat going in the next 5 to 10 years.

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

I understand that you ask that question of your guests, but am I allowed to say I don't know? I mean, I think that the biggest threat, and I would take what I say from my knowledge of briefings and JTAC and the government, which is that Islamist extremist terrorism is currently the biggest threat. That is the cause, it is people in that sort of fraternity, who are most likely to carry out attacks which will be successful. So, Islamist terrorism is certainly the thing. Where it goes, I think all I'd say is, it's going come from the internet, but quite how, I don't know.

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Absolutely fine. A very fair answer. And I think if the Independent Review of Terrorism Legislation isn't sure, then that just shows that we've all got our work cut out for us. But Jonathan Hall, thank you very, very much for coming on to Totally Terrorism today. I think that is a fantastic start to hopefully a very good Season 2, and I think our listeners will really enjoy that. 

Guest Expert - Jonathan Hall KC

Thanks. 

Threat Analyst - Oliver Hair

Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening to the latest episode of Totally Terrorism, a Pool Re podcast. We hope that you have found this discussion useful for supporting or building your knowledge and understanding of terrorism threat. We hope that you'll join us next month for another conversation between a new guest expert and one of the Pool Re terrorism threat analysts.

You can access further material on terrorism threat through our Knowledge Centre on the Pool Re website, or sign up for direct monthly updates, including a reminder for each episode of this podcast, at poolre.co.uk/signup. 

Thank you for checking out the podcast and we look forward to seeing you next time on Totally Terrorism