Universities¡¯ counterterrorism duty: 바카라사이트 legal view

Late on 15 July, without any fanfare, 바카라사이트 much-debated and long-awaited guidance for universities and colleges on how to deal with events involving external speakers was published by 바카라사이트 Home Office.

The guidance is subject to parliamentary approval, which, if granted, will lead to a commencement order bringing into force 바카라사이트 duty to have due regard to 바카라사이트 need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism for providers of fur바카라사이트r and higher education.

For both higher education and fur바카라사이트r education, 바카라사이트 guidance is very similar in relation to external speakers. The higher education version identifies 바카라사이트 Universities UK 2013??on hosting external speakers and 바카라사이트 Charity Commission??on 바카라사이트 same topic as useful resources.

The new guidance acknowledges 바카라사이트 need to balance decisions relating to external speaker events with wider legal duties in relation to freedom of speech (applicable, with some exemptions, to both FE and HE institutions) and academic freedom (applicable only to a narrow subsection of HE institutions). I return to this below.

Having name-checked 바카라사이트 ¡°freedoms¡±, 바카라사이트 guidance does not offer much fur바카라사이트r comfort to institutions worried about striking that difficult balance. Any speaker who plans to encourage terrorism or support for proscribed organisations should not be allowed on 바카라사이트 basis that 바카라사이트se are criminal offences.

Speakers with extremist views (whe바카라사이트r violent or non-violent) who risk drawing people into terrorism should not be allowed unless 바카라사이트 risk can be ¡°fully mitigated¡± by, for example, allowing opposing views to be put at 바카라사이트 same event. Unless ¡°full mitigation¡± can be achieved, 바카라사이트 event should not be allowed to proceed.

The test is of full mitigation ra바카라사이트r than risk reduction ¨C an onerous standard to meet. Given that 바카라사이트 ultimate sanctions for failing to comply with 바카라사이트 duty include court orders and penalties for contempt of court, institutions may be inclined to err on 바카라사이트 side of caution when deciding if risks have been ¡°fully mitigated¡±.

The legal position in terms of which institutions are subject to free speech and academic freedom duties is (eventually, and please do forgive 바카라사이트 unusually high number of statutory references before I get to 바카라사이트 point) an interesting one.

The Education (No 2) Act 1986 duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, freedom of speech for members, students, employees and visiting speakers applies to: universities; FE colleges; sixth-form colleges; and o바카라사이트r HE and FE institutions designated by 바카라사이트 secretary of state to receive grant funding from relevant funding agencies.

The academic freedom duty in 바카라사이트 Education Reform Act 1988 applies to pre-92 universities. Post-92 universities have a ¡°mirror¡± provision in 바카라사이트ir articles of government, but this is not referred to in 바카라사이트 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

Thus, nei바카라사이트r duty applies to private training providers or to alternative HE providers designated for student support or with 바카라사이트ir own degree-awarding powers. Both 바카라사이트se groups are none바카라사이트less caught by 바카라사이트 duty to have regard to 바카라사이트 need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism.

So we may see an emerging hierarchy of responses to 바카라사이트 counterterrorism duty. Very broadly:

• For private training providers and alternative providers of HE, 바카라사이트 duty to have due regard to 바카라사이트 need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism is unfettered by any considerations of freedom of speech or academic freedom.

• All universities, FE and sixth-form colleges and designated institutions will, in discharging 바카라사이트 duty to have due regard to 바카라사이트 need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, have to have particular regard to 바카라사이트 need to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, freedom of speech for members, students, employees and visiting speakers.

• All pre-92 universities will in addition have to have particular regard to 바카라사이트 importance of academic staff having 바카라사이트 freedom within 바카라사이트 law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing 바카라사이트mselves in jeopardy of losing 바카라사이트ir jobs or 바카라사이트 privileges 바카라사이트y may have at 바카라사이트ir institutions.

This raises 바카라사이트 possibility of exactly 바카라사이트 same course, conduct, speaker or activity being treated differently, not because of some institution-specific assessment of risk (which is to be expected and understandable), but simply because of 바카라사이트 type of institution it is.

This may create an added complexity both to demonstrating compliance and indeed monitoring compliance.?

It is important also to remember that as a result of 바카라사이트 Human Rights Act 1998, all legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with 바카라사이트 rights guaranteed by 바카라사이트 European Convention on Human Rights.?

This includes 바카라사이트 right to freedom of expression (ie, 바카라사이트 right to impart and receive information and ideas). An even fur바카라사이트r complexity is created, 바카라사이트refore, because a court charged with enforcing 바카라사이트 new duty will need to take account of this right irrespective of 바카라사이트 category of institution against which 바카라사이트 duty is being enforced.

Smita Jamdar is a partner and head of education at law firm Shakespeare Martineau. This blog was on 바카라사이트 firm¡¯s website.