The unjustifiable release of Anjem Choudary, a notorious Islamist hate preacher and a dangerous man, risks a fundamental deterioration of the battle against hate.
Choudary, the leader of the now banned terrorist organisation Al-Muhajiroun, encouraged hundreds to join Islamic State through his famous rallies, online talks, and powerful networks.
But Choudary was more than just a symbol and a charismatic leader to his followers. The British government let him operate freely for years preaching his toxic ideology, because he was able to skirt the boundaries of free speech. That leniency allowed Far Right groups such as the English Defence League and its leader, Tommy Robinson, to protest against Choudary’s perceived legitimacy.
The fact that Choudary has only served half of his sentence is bound to become a further rallying cry around how those associated with terrorism are treated: after all, Choudary pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and was a high-profile advocate of the most extreme forms of Salafi jihadism and now he is free.
Choudary never actively condoned violence but often labelled Muslims who held a different view from him "apostates" – licensing their killing to his followers. This meant that organisations like the Quilliam Foundation, where I worked for over two years, were frequently under security lockdown.
When sentencing Choudary and his co-defendant Mohammed Rahman, Mr Justice Holroyde lacked power under existing legislation to determine whether Choudary was an individual likely to harm the public through re-offending. Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalises "inviting support for a proscribed organisation" – as Choudary did – is not a specified offence.
As such, the court had no powers to make such determinations for any membership, travel, or advocacy offences. The Government’s Counter-Terrorism and Border Security, the progress of which is currently being held up in the House of Lords, would change that.
In the future, sentencing for extremists such as Choudary should include extended sentence powers under the Criminal Justice Act. This would mean that rather than being automatically released at the halfway point of the sentence, offenders would need to demonstrate to a Parole Board that they no longer pose a threat to the public before they can be released.
Let there be no doubt that Anjem Choudary’s release makes the job of the security services much harder. Despite the 25 licence conditions placed on Choudary – many of which are not easy to enforce – surveillance will be needed to ensure that he does not meet with people in private. His release will now put a drain on the resources of both the probation and the security services.
This year, as we anticipate the release of other, less widely known extremists than Choudary, we must ensure that such people are not allowed to walk free from prison early. This can only be done by updating existing legislation to recognize the unique nature of terrorism offences and the continued dangers such people pose to society.
