UK SECURITY EXPO public order but not to national security and are investigated by the police, not MI5’. Adding to the difficulty in dealing with terrorism is the rule of law approach to policing, so critical in modern democracies. Dealing with people and organisations who, by their very existence, are operating outside the law can prove challenging to say the least. However, this means that in identifying, tracking and disrupting potential terrorists the rules of necessity and proportionality must be applied to all intelligence operations with the aim of the police to protect public safety and at the same time gather sufficient evidence to prosecute. This makes monitoring terrorists extremely difficult and can come into conflict with the ability to penetrate terrorist networks, the way they were in Northern Ireland. PATTERNS OF CRIME Most police forces now have an intelligence-led policing model through the National Intelligence Model or NIM. This was defined in 2003 by Professor Nick Tilley as ‘developing and maintaining a detailed and up‑to‑date picture of patterns of crime and criminality in order to intervene in it most effectively to disrupt networks and remove prolific offenders’. This works where there is a network and activity to monitor but proves challenging when dealing with ‘lone wolf’ attacks or ‘clean skin’ attacks. Counter terror policing is organised in such a way as to tap into the local intelligence available in regional constabularies but bring it together in a more rapid way across the country. This is done through the National Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters, hosted by the Metropolitan Police, and has five regional counter terror units (CTUs) and six regional Counter Terrorism Intelligence Units (CTIUs). These are all resourced by the police forces in their respective areas and the CTIUs carry out primarily intelligence gathering operations. This is bottom up intelligence gathering from within areas and communities and is critical to the success of any counter terror operation. Intelligence is the key to identifying potential terrorists and disrupting their activities before they get the opportunity to execute their attack. The difficulty is that the terrorism we are now seeing is not building up patterns in communities, nor have the activities, of the terrorists who have carried out successful attacks, done anything to cause themselves to tip over the evidential bar and get arrested. The police ACT (Action Counters Terrorism) programme is designed to maximise the low-level information reported to try and fill this gap, using the very real knowledge of communities themselves. More active intelligence gathering by the
COUNTER TERROR POLICING IS ORGANISED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO TAP INTO THE LOCAL INTELLIGENCE AVAILABLE IN REGIONAL CONSTABULARIES BUT BRING IT TOGETHER IN A MORE RAPID WAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY police only really happened in Northern Ireland when dealing with both republican and loyalist terrorists but the dangers of such actions are clear in an ongoing case where an ex‑senior loyalist terrorist, Gary Haggarty, who pleaded guilty to over 200 charges including five murders has offered to give evidence against several former police officers he’s accused of collusion while he was working as an informer from 1993-2004. Where is the ‘rule of law’ line drawn when running agents who are active terrorists?
The world of intelligence is often referred to as ‘murky’ but it is the frontline defence we have against modern terrorism. As terrorists become more able to operate alone through internet enabled training, finding them is becoming harder. Are we doing enough? Are our police intelligence methodologies good enough? These questions and more will be examined at the UK Security Expo at London Olympia on 29-30 November. There are eight free‑to‑attend E
ISSUE 32 | COUNTER TERROR BUSINESS MAGAZINE
13