The UK Government says that it is committed to the ‘[o]versight, scrutiny and transparency of our counter-terrorism work’, which it considers to be ‘world-leading’. According to CONTEST: The United Kingdom's Strategy for Countering Terrorism, this ‘includes the reports we publish, the involvement of independent judges who review government agencies’ use of intrusive powers and government applications for TEOs and TPIMs, an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and accountability to Parliament’. In order to ‘listen and respond to improve our approach to keeping the public safe’, the Government says it will ‘continue to engage extensively with the public, civil society, academia and Parliament, and through community outreach’.

As it stands, this is as close to a complete account of the Government's understanding of counter-terrorism review as exists. Yet it is not comprehensive. Judges do far more in counter-terrorism review than review agencies’ use of intrusive powers or applications for counterterrorism orders. They also preside over criminal trials and appeals relating to terrorism offences and hear applications for judicial review and applications under the Human Rights Act 1998. Alongside the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, there is an Independent Reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 provides for an independent review of Prevent. Parliamentary accountability includes the everyday work (including committee work) of the legislature, but also specific forms of counter-terrorism review and accountability. These largely comprise approving (via affirmative resolution) or not annulling (via negative resolution) orders laid before Parliament under counter-terrorism legislation, such as creating various codes of practice, proscribing and de-proscribing terrorist organisations, and continuing temporary counter-terrorism laws in force. Furthermore, just as counterterrorism is now part of the quotidian business of statehood, so too is counter-terrorism review part of the everyday business of the organs of state: the Executive, Parliament and the courts. Here we refer to how the constitutional labour of these branches may be applied to counterterrorism outside of specific and mandated reviews of counter-terrorism laws and policies. Civil society's role in counter-terrorism review is multifaceted and can include publishing reports on particular counterterrorism laws or policies, feeding into state-initiated reviews and initiating legal proceedings to challenge counter-terrorism laws and policies.