Credit-card fraud and other offences linked to terrorism should be punished with extra years in jail, the Government’s anti-terror watchdog recommended yesterday. Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, called for judges to be given powers to impose an increase in prison sentences of up to five years if a crime assisted or facilitated terrorism.

The proposal would apply to nonterrorist crimes that attracted a minimum jail term of five years.

Lord Carlile made a number of recommendations for changes to the legal definition of terrorism, but he rejected the idea of a so-called “Nelson Mandela defence”, under which alleged terrorists could argue that they were battling against an oppressive regime.

His proposal to allow judges to issue longer jail terms for terror-linked crimes could provide a partial solution to the difficulties faced by the authorities.

“The financing of terrorist cells can occur through large numbers of small but fraudulent credit card transactions. Or the arming of terrorists may include the theft or obtaining by deception of laboratory or agricultural materials of use in explosives,” his report said.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that special sentencing powers would be a useful addition to the criminal law.

Under the proposal, a judge would decide whether the circumstances merited the longer jail sentence. The criminal standard of proof — beyond all reasonable doubt — should apply when deciding whether the aggravating factor applied.

The report said that the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000 was “useful and broadly fit for purpose”. Lord Carlile recommended that the wording of the law which says that an offence should be treated as terrorism if it attempted to “influence” a target audience should be altered by replacing “influence” with “intimidate”.

He wanted the definition of terrorism to include the use or threat of action made for the purpose of advancing “racial, ethnic or other similar causes”. At present the definition only includes “political, religious or ideological cause”.

The report said: “A change of that kind would cement into law . . . that terrorism includes campaigns of terrorist violence motivated by racism.”

Lord Carlile said that some commentators, including a group of MPs, had suggested that terrorists should be able to argue in court that their actions were justified if they were fighting for a “just cause”.

“Many people have represented to me that it should not be an offence to plot or perpetrate terrorism against oppressive regimes which act in breach of international obligations, subject to the proviso that civilians and noncombatants are not deliberately targeted,” he said.

“They cite examples of historic freedom fighters who were at one time regarded as terrorists, with Nelson Mandela often quoted as the paradigm.”

He said that such an approach would breach international treaties that require the Government to take a “zero-tolerance” approach to terrorism. It would also pose difficulties over deciding which were the “bad” regimes against which a terrorist could legitimately campaign.

The peer concluded: “There is really no practical way of introducing the kind of statutory defence suggested, and at the same time remain within international legal obligations.”

Times Recommends

• Time-worn Freddie gives up Test matches
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it’s all in the mind