The eroding distinction between intelligence and evidence in terrorism investigations

Abstract

The first part of this article constructs ideal types or models of intelligence and evidence. It then examines how an intelligence paradigm based on risk, associations and status has permeated post 9/11 anti-terrorism laws in Australia, Canada and elsewhere. With reference to the ul-Haque and Haneef affairs in Australia and the Arar affair in Canada, it demonstrates how police forces have struggled with intelligence and intelligence agencies have struggled with evidence after 9/11 as well as attempts to keep intelligence secret in terrorism prosecutions. It concludes with an evaluation of the eroding distinction between intelligence and evidence in terrorism investigations and prosecutions.