Intelligence, Counter‐Terrorism and the Courts: Canadian and International Experience

Abstract

ABSTRACT The division between law enforcement and intelligence functions was almost universally effected in order to separate the traditional investigation of criminal activities, and its stringent rules, from the collection of intelligence, thus giving the latter more flexibility. Terrorism crimes often do not fit in a single mould; in order to prevent the threat, an integrated approach to national security is often cited as key to an effective response. However, when law enforcement agencies want to use intelligence as evidence before a tribunal or a court, many factors should be taken into account. An important factor is the expertise of the court, the tribunal or the decision‐maker upon which information will be conveyed. I will review the strategies to be adopted in order to present such information, which will vary greatly depending whether or not the entity has an expertise in national security or in intelligence issues, and can verify and weight such information. Finally, issues in relation to admissibility of evidence obtained from torture, in light of the recent House of Lords decision of A(FC) and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 71, will be reviewed.