G was to stand trial for possession of articles useful for terrorism. Whilst in prison, he collected and created diagrams and information and prepared plans to bomb a local army centre. When arrested he said he had done so to upset the prison officers. He suffered paranoid schizophrenia. It had been held that his mental condition could not amount to a reasonable excuse. J had been found in possession of digital materials on training for terrorism, for which he gave several excuses according to their nature.
Held: The appeals by the Crown succeeded. To establish the offence under section 58 it was not necessary to show that the defendant had collected the materials for a terrorist related purpose. Lord Rodger said that a person ‘can commit an offence under subsection 58(1) in either of two ways. First, he commits an offence if he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There are allegations to that effect against both Mr G and Mr J. Secondly, he commits an offence if he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind. There is an allegation to that effect against Mr J. ‘ The defendant must be shown to have been in possession of the articles, and to have known the content.
Under section 57, the defendant’s purpose was also to be established.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mance
[2010] 1 AC 43, [2009] 2 WLR 724, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 4, [2009] 2 All ER 409, [2009] UKHL 13, [2010] AC 43
Bailii, HL, Times
Terrorism Act 2000 57 58 118
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Zafar and others v Regina CACD 13-Feb-2008
The defendants appealed against their convictions for possessing articles for a terrorist purpose. . .
Cited – J v Regina CACD 2008
. .
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Cited – Regina v Berry (No 3) CACD 1993
If there are several grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal can decide whether the other grounds are to be considered.
The Court of Appeal is to note any unresolved issues after a case has decided on one point only.
Lord Taylor CJ . .
Appeal from – G v Regina CACD 29-Apr-2008
Appeal by defendant in terrorist trial against ruling at preparatory hearing that he had no reasonable excuse defence. . .
Cited – K v Regina CACD 13-Feb-2008
The Court considered the nature of the documents which fall within the section and, secondly, the scope of the defence of reasonable excuse under section 58(3).
Held: ‘A document or record will only fall within section 58 if it is of a kind . .
Appeal from – J v Regina CACD 2008
. .
Cited – M, Regina v CACD 7-Feb-2007
. .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.314313
