Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 189 (Feb)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWCA Crim 184
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, Owen and Bean JJ

Representation Joel Bennathan QC (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the first defendant.
  Nigel Peters QC (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the second defendant.
  Michel Massih QC (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the third defendant.
  Jim Sturman QC (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the fourth defendant.
  David Gottlieb (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the fifth defendant.
  Andrew Edis QC and Johnathan Rees (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 13 February 2008

Catchwords

Criminal law - Terrorism - Terrorist offences - Possession for terrorist purposes - Possessing article in circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion that possession being for purpose connected with commission, preparation or instigation of act of terrorism - Interpretation - .

The Case

of the Terrorism Act 2000 had to be interpreted in a way which required a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism. It should be interpreted as though it read that 'a person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intends it to be used for the purpose of the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism'. Possessing a document for the purpose of inciting a person to commit an act of terrorism fell within the ambit of s 57. Section 57 had to be construed having regard to the normal meaning of 'instigate', namely,'to goad or incite to take some action or course'.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.