From contestation to conviction: terrorism expertise before the courts

T. Anwar; M. De Goede

doi:10.1111/jols.12294

From contestation to conviction: terrorism expertise before the courts

T. Anwar, M. De Goede

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Law and Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cardiff University (CU)This article asks how terrorism expertise has been mobilized in recent trials on terrorism financing. How is expert knowledge concerning ongoing and complex political situations involving alleged terrorism translated into factual evidence before a court of law? What kind of sources do courts use in terrorism cases, and what kind of expert knowledge is acknowledged or ignored? Through analysis of concrete cases under the United Kingdom (UK) Terrorism Act (2000) and the Dutch penal law Article 421Sr, we show how contested terrorism expertise becomes ‘certified knowledge’ that holds together as grounds for conviction before a court of law. This article contributes to socio-legal debates on legal knowledge in two ways. First, we analyse the everyday, material practices of gathering, presenting, and contesting expertise in relation to security. Second, the article analyses new case material and a particular kind of knowledge – namely, security knowledge and terrorism expertise – to identify patterns in what is deemed relevant for the court.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	137-157
Journal	Journal of Law and Society
Volume	48
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12294
Publication status	Published - 1 Jun 2021
Externally published	Yes

Funding

We thank the editorial board and two reviewers of the Journal of Law and Society for their insightful comments on the article. We are grateful to Emilie Cloatre, Beste İşleyen, and all members of the FOLLOW team, including Rocco Bellanova, Esmé Bosma, Pieter Lagerwaard, and Carola Westermeier, for their feedback on earlier drafts. The participants of the INTERSECT workshop ‘The Future of European Security’ at the University of Amsterdam in February 2020 provided inspiration to further develop our arguments. Special thanks to Marie Irmer for her excellent research assistance. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (research project ‘FOLLOW: Following the Money from Transaction to Trial’, Grant No. ERC-2015-CoG 682317). We thank the editorial board and two reviewers of the for their insightful comments on the article. We are grateful to Emilie Cloatre, Beste İşleyen, and all members of the FOLLOW team, including Rocco Bellanova, Esmé Bosma, Pieter Lagerwaard, and Carola Westermeier, for their feedback on earlier drafts. The participants of the INTERSECT workshop ‘The Future of European Security’ at the University of Amsterdam in February 2020 provided inspiration to further develop our arguments. Special thanks to Marie Irmer for her excellent research assistance. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (research project ‘FOLLOW: Following the Money from Transaction to Trial’, Grant No. ERC‐2015‐CoG 682317). Journal of Law and Society

Funders	Funder number
Rocco Bellanova
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
European Research Council
Horizon 2020	682317

Access to Document

10.1111/jols.12294

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{baf9be33820f4e0da051739280191b63,

title = "From contestation to conviction: terrorism expertise before the courts",

abstract = "{\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors. Journal of Law and Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cardiff University (CU)This article asks how terrorism expertise has been mobilized in recent trials on terrorism financing. How is expert knowledge concerning ongoing and complex political situations involving alleged terrorism translated into factual evidence before a court of law? What kind of sources do courts use in terrorism cases, and what kind of expert knowledge is acknowledged or ignored? Through analysis of concrete cases under the United Kingdom (UK) Terrorism Act (2000) and the Dutch penal law Article 421Sr, we show how contested terrorism expertise becomes {\textquoteleft}certified knowledge{\textquoteright} that holds together as grounds for conviction before a court of law. This article contributes to socio-legal debates on legal knowledge in two ways. First, we analyse the everyday, material practices of gathering, presenting, and contesting expertise in relation to security. Second, the article analyses new case material and a particular kind of knowledge – namely, security knowledge and terrorism expertise – to identify patterns in what is deemed relevant for the court.",

author = "T. Anwar and {De Goede}, M.",

year = "2021",

month = jun,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/jols.12294",

language = "English",

volume = "48",

pages = "137--157",

journal = "Journal of Law and Society",

issn = "0263-323X",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - From contestation to conviction

T2 - terrorism expertise before the courts

AU - Anwar, T.

AU - De Goede, M.

PY - 2021/6/1

Y1 - 2021/6/1

N2 - © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Law and Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cardiff University (CU)This article asks how terrorism expertise has been mobilized in recent trials on terrorism financing. How is expert knowledge concerning ongoing and complex political situations involving alleged terrorism translated into factual evidence before a court of law? What kind of sources do courts use in terrorism cases, and what kind of expert knowledge is acknowledged or ignored? Through analysis of concrete cases under the United Kingdom (UK) Terrorism Act (2000) and the Dutch penal law Article 421Sr, we show how contested terrorism expertise becomes ‘certified knowledge’ that holds together as grounds for conviction before a court of law. This article contributes to socio-legal debates on legal knowledge in two ways. First, we analyse the everyday, material practices of gathering, presenting, and contesting expertise in relation to security. Second, the article analyses new case material and a particular kind of knowledge – namely, security knowledge and terrorism expertise – to identify patterns in what is deemed relevant for the court.

AB - © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Law and Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cardiff University (CU)This article asks how terrorism expertise has been mobilized in recent trials on terrorism financing. How is expert knowledge concerning ongoing and complex political situations involving alleged terrorism translated into factual evidence before a court of law? What kind of sources do courts use in terrorism cases, and what kind of expert knowledge is acknowledged or ignored? Through analysis of concrete cases under the United Kingdom (UK) Terrorism Act (2000) and the Dutch penal law Article 421Sr, we show how contested terrorism expertise becomes ‘certified knowledge’ that holds together as grounds for conviction before a court of law. This article contributes to socio-legal debates on legal knowledge in two ways. First, we analyse the everyday, material practices of gathering, presenting, and contesting expertise in relation to security. Second, the article analyses new case material and a particular kind of knowledge – namely, security knowledge and terrorism expertise – to identify patterns in what is deemed relevant for the court.

U2 - 10.1111/jols.12294

DO - 10.1111/jols.12294

M3 - Article

SN - 0263-323X

VL - 48

SP - 137

EP - 157

JO - Journal of Law and Society

JF - Journal of Law and Society

IS - 2

ER -

From contestation to conviction: terrorism expertise before the courts

Abstract

Funding

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Fingerprint

Cite this