Theresa May is a terrorist in the meaning of section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000

The United Kingdom is in the bizarre position of having a terrorist, Theresa May MP, in charge of its counter-terrorism strategy.

Let me explain.

The principal definition of who is or is not a terrorist is contained in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

For convenience I quote the text of Section 40 here.

40 Terrorist: interpretation.

(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—

(a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or

(b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

(2)The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.

The question then arises as to whether Theresa May is or is not a terrorist in the meaning of Section 40.

Has, for example, Theresa May committed an offence contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000?

In my view it is clear that Theresa May has committed a Section 56 offence.

Again, for convenience, I quote the full text of Section 56 here:

56 Directing terrorist organisation.

(1)A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

I will take it as read that my readers accept that Mrs. May plays a part in "directing" (at least some of)  the "activities" of Her Majesty's Government.

Is H.M. Government an organisation "concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism"?

To demonstrate that Mrs. May is a terrorist in the meaning of Section 40 we must examine the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

For convenience, I quote the text of Section 1 in full:

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

H.M. Government, led by David Cameron, has conducted acts of terrorism (in the meaning of Section 1) in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq.

My letter of 25th September 2014 to Attorney General Jeremy Wright and Solicitor General Robert Buckland rehearses some of the arguments relating to RAF terrorism in Iraq:
Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General

Let me summarise my reasoning as follows:

1. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, directs activities of H.M. Government
2. H.M. Government has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya
3. Theresa May has therefore committed one or more offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000
4. Given that she has committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000, Theresa May is a terrorist in the meaing of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Notice that the definition of "terrorist" in section 40 refers to an offence having been committed. It does not refer to conviction of such an offence.

It is bizarre that the terrorist Theresa May MP leads the UK Counter-terrorism strategy.