Dominic Casciani
banner
bbcdomc.bsky.social
Dominic Casciani
@bbcdomc.bsky.social
BBC News Home and Legal Correspondent. // Stories // Features // Analysis // Documentaries // The Mafia Man in the Lancashire Caravan: http://bbc.in/2UV2ILv
Linktree and contact details: https://linktr.ee/bbcdomc
And if you want the mahoosively detailed wider story - here's my In Depth on the UK's relationship with an institution it largely created www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
Would leaving the ECHR really 'stop the boats'?
The extent to which leaving the Convention would make a difference to immigration has been greatly exaggerated, argues Lord Sumption
www.bbc.co.uk
November 4, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Always express big numbers as something people can relate to! x times the size of Wales, y double decker buses to the moon and back etc etc … one of the oldest traditional tricks of my trade …
September 1, 2025 at 9:43 PM
Some terrorism offences are territory & nationality agnostic. Which means a foreign national committing the alleged offence abroad can be arrested in the UK. See for example the wording on "jurisdiction" for terrorism finance offences: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/1...
Terrorism Act 2000
An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance o...
www.legislation.gov.uk
August 18, 2025 at 4:01 PM
If this becomes a relevant factor in the Judicial Review in the autumn, I'll be reporting it.
August 15, 2025 at 1:47 PM
Contact me via linktr.ee/bbcdomc Thanks
Dominic Casciani | Twitter | Linktree
Home and Legal Correspondent, BBC News. Specialist reporter and broadcaster.
linktr.ee
August 15, 2025 at 1:44 PM
We don't know what a jury would have done. They are randomly chosen. Their deliberations are a secret known only to them. But most defendants are *advised* by their lawyers what their chances before a jury will be - a discussion that is often pivotal to whether they plead NG or G.
August 15, 2025 at 1:43 PM
He’s now very chill. Thanks for reading !
August 14, 2025 at 6:11 PM
So… TACT 2000 is long standing and lots of case law defines how it works. This situation is novel. It would be interesting if the Supreme Court looked at PA, protest law and the serious damage point but that’s me speculating about a future news story. Only a lawyer can sensibly say if that’s likely
August 14, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Sec 1 Terrorism Act 2000. The wording is “serious damage to property” so I’ve mangled it while multitasking dog-walking, but the point is that the qualifying types of offences for a ban include evidence of serious criminal damage. Hope that helps. Link: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/1...
Terrorism Act 2000
An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance o...
www.legislation.gov.uk
August 14, 2025 at 5:45 PM
This was entirely my fault in a rushed late sub-edit to cut words. Wholly unintentional and I adjusted the piece very early this morning to include that omission. Happy to have done so. Imperfect business journalism so I always welcome reasonable comment that assists and improves.
morning.to
August 14, 2025 at 5:35 PM
But the UK has a law that says “serious criminal damage” for an ideology can be terrorism. (Legacy of the IRA days when it blew things up to cause economic damage.) Hence the big defence break-ins seemingly providing the legal tipping point. Not any red paint and divots on the 18th fairway
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
I suspect … a judge would laugh the Home Secretary’s team out of court if she banned a protest group for temporarily annoying golfers.
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
I’m not saying it’s impossible - but UK terror laws need to be publicly justified in independent courts to be used. Digging up a golf green is not terrorism. It’s minor vandalism in crim law terms (or direct action if you take the view that free speech can include damaging someone’s property).
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
The Home Secretary was asking additional questions of officials and pulled the ban lever *only after the RAF Brize Norton break-in.* Nothing I’ve seen so far shows that her decision (which has to be defended in court) turned on a bit of ear-bashing of the PM from the White House.
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
The police advised they backed a ban - because it would provide them with more powers to get ahead of such alleged break-in plotting - some time before the Trump incident. I know this from court documents I nagged to obtain.
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
The Home Office, MI5, counter terror police etc began seriously considering a ban a year ago after the August 24 a highly significant criminal damage break-in to an Israeli owned defence firm, Elbit.
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Something of note I thought is useful but not in this piece. Some speculate that the Home Sec only banned PA because Trump was cross that some of its followers vandalised his Turnberry golf course. But… the timing and legal rationale given in court so far doesn’t support that.
August 14, 2025 at 5:32 PM
I said many not all, or a majority. And some have thanked me today for a thoughtful piece. Not for me to say if I’m ignorant but I’m certainly not prejudiced. Please don’t bandy around those kinds of words. Reasoned debate is always better.
Thanks for reading.
August 14, 2025 at 5:11 PM
As seen in the US already. A Federal judge in Manhattan was very cross, understandably so, when probably the first example of this happened over there in 2023.
May 7, 2025 at 10:20 AM
Omitted for simplicity’s sake today but in essence 6,8,14
April 29, 2025 at 9:07 AM