Interview: Britain’s new terror watchdog Max Hill - ‘Getting justice for Damilola ranks as my proudest feat’

Look back at Britain’s biggest terrorism cases since the millennium and one name will keep reappearing on the legal benches: Max Hill QC.

The “top-league criminal silk” – his chambers’ phrase – has prosecuted Irish republicans, brought down al-Qaeda terror cells and incarcerated Isil terrorists.

It was Mr Hill who helped secure the last IRA prosecution in the UK after terrorists planted a car bomb outside the BBC’s White City studios in 2001.

He brought to justice the 21/7 plotters who planned copycat bombings just weeks after the 7/7 London Underground attacks, as well as those behind the so-called ‘Ricin Conspiracy’ to spread the deadly poison on the streets of Britain.

So when Mr Hill was unveiled as the new independent terror watchdog this week there was little surprise that his appointment was greeted with applause.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, praised his “wealth of experience and legal expertise” while terror experts dubbed him “formidable”.

Yet speaking with The Sunday Telegraph for his first major interview, Mr Hill picks another case, not linked to terrorism, as the proudest moment of his career to date.

Successfully prosecuting the killers of Damilola Taylor, the 10-year-old Nigerian stabbed to death on London’s streets in 2000, stands out.

“There are cases that leave more of an impression. I would single out Damilola Taylor, because there was something about that case and its impact which doesn’t leave you,” he says.

“Undoubtedly the killing of a 10-year-old boy on the streets of London when his Nigerian parents had sent him to be schooled in London thinking he would be safer here than at home, that is not only tragic but leaves a lasting impression.”

Few would have predicted Mr Hill’s glittering legal career when he arrived at Oxford in 1983, becoming the first in his immediate family to attend university.

A law degree at St Peter’s College was swiftly followed by a barrister’s training, kick-starting a 30-year legal career that has led to his new role as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

The prevalence of extremist videos online and their ability to radicalise young Britons from their bedrooms is one of the problems in Mr Hill’s sights.

“The rise of social media in the last decade and of course the internet over the last 25, 30 years has seen an extraordinary phenomenon in terms of worldwide information,” he says.

“We are better informed about what’s going on than we ever were but there’s more information accessible at a few clicks of a button to us and to our children than there was before.”

He has first-hand experience of the danger. One case he represented saw a 14-year-old Briton — himself already radicalised — use social media to try to convince someone on the other side of the world to commit atrocities.

“I know from my case work that there are many recent examples where actually quite young people, often teenagers, have been radicalised or have had their mindset altered in part or in whole by what is accessible to them from their bedroom on a laptop computer. “That’s a sign of real worry for all of us,” said the 53-year-old, himself a father of two.

Despite the threat Mr Hill – whose role is to scrutinise government legislation – opposes “draconian” measures that would imperil free speech online.

He declines to back extra laws to force Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants to take down extremist content, proposing instead more international co-operation between governments.

He is similarly even-handed when it comes to a terror story dominating the news this week – the case of Ronald Fiddler, the Guantanamo Bay detainee turned Isil suicide bomber.

Mr Hill insists he shares the public’s concern over whether a reported £1 million compensation payment for Fiddler’s detainment ended up funding terror.

But he rejects calls for restrictions on such future payments and defends ministers, saying they could not have known Fiddler — freed in 2004 — would eventually join Isil, an organisation not even in existence then.

“[Ministers] are to be called to account if in error taxpayers’ money is paid to an individual who actually represents a significant risk to our national security through terrorist activity here or abroad,” he says.  

“But they cannot be held to account for a risk that was simply not present, not visible, not detectable at the time of the payout. We have to be more sophisticated in our criticism than that and more sophisticated in our solutions.

“And there are solutions to be found in our primary legislation in terms of trying to ensure protection against the use of money for adverse organisations such as so-called Islamic State.”

Addressing the threats of today, Mr Hill makes clear that the possibility of mass terrorist attacks in Britain is all too real, comparable to the IRA bombing campaign in the 1970s.

He praises the intelligence agencies for foiling terrorist plots, reacting to the “wake-up call” of the 7/7 Tube bombings with efficiency and widespread success.

“Although many people might be alarmed to hear me say that I think the threat is present and severe, we must remember that since July 2005 there has been in essence a single death in Britain from that form of terrorism, namely Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich,” he says.

“[It was] another intense tragedy and shocking moment in British history, but we should remember the success rate in avoiding or averting these plots, which has been truly remarkable.”

As for what Mr Hill wants to investigate, the use of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures – so-called TPIMs, a form of control order that can restrict a person’s movement or financial activity – is high on the list.

He calls the orders an “extraordinarily serious infringement” on people’s lives and, while careful to insist they remain “necessary”, appears to caution their use.  

“The intention of the Government, the authorities, must always be to charge an individual who they believe is guilty of a crime, to place them before a public court and to either approve the offence or say enough is enough,” he says.

Ensuring the right protections are in place for the British extremists who fled to Syria to fight with Isil but are now expected to return imminently is another priority. All of this, of course, will need someone who can stand up to ministers, even the Prime Minister herself, when there are disagreements.

Is Mr Hill prepared to stand his ground? “I have never been an employee of Government,” he notes, adding: “I won’t have any hesitation in expressing and maintaining my view.”

With a legal record that includes bringing to justice would-be suicide bombers and IRA terrorists, few will doubt that.