![UK student found guilty of terrorism-related offense in semi-secret trial](https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/03/shutterstock_657639088.jpg)
[JURIST] Last week a law student was found guilty for a terrorism-related offense in the UK after a semi-secret trial. The Turkish-born student, Erol Incedal, was found guilty of possessing a bomb-making document that is likely useful to terrorists. Prosecutors sought to keep the trial secret on national security grounds, but a judge ruled that some sections should be public and lifted reporting restrictions [BBC report] on Monday. Police found a memory card with the document and a file on car bombs tucked into his iPhone. Incedal denied any terrorist affiliation. A co-defendant who was found with an identical document pleaded guilty before the trial started.
Anti-terrorism laws have become much stricter in the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks [JURIST backgrounder], and even more so in recent months following the rise of the Islamic State (IS). Enforcement of such laws has often led to allegations of human rights abuses. Last month Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper [official website] announced plans to strengthen Canada’s anti-terrorism laws [JURIST report]. In July Pakistan’s parliament passed an anti-terrorism measure [JURIST report] which permits police to use lethal force, search buildings without a warrant and detain suspects at secret facilities for up to 60 days without charge “on reasonable apprehension of commission of a scheduled offense.” In April Amnesty International (AI) challenged an anti-terrorism bill [JURIST report] proposed in the Brazilian National Congress, claiming the law as written threatens free speech and peaceful assembly. AI challenged a similar law in Egypt [JURIST report] the same month, arguing that amendments to the law would allow the government to levy terrorism charges on a broad range of offenses, and could be used as a tool to root out dissent.