How to Make a Terrorist Out of Nothing
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00777.x |
| Date | 01 November 2009 |
| Published date | 01 November 2009 |
| Author | Jacqueline Hodgson,Victor Tadros |
CASES
How to Make aTerrorist Out of Nothing
Jacqueline Hodgson andVictor Tadros
n
RvGconcerns the controversial o¡ence of collecting or recording information likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. We comment on a number of
de¢ciencies in that judgment and investigate the proper approachthat ought to be taken to that
o¡ence under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The criminal law of England andWales is scattered with o¡ences which, in their
drafting, arebroad and vague to the point of absurdity.One of the worst o¡enders
is section 58(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which makes it a criminal o¡ence to
collect ormake a record ofi nformation likely tobe useful to a personcommitting
or preparing an act of terrorism or possessing a document or record containing
informationofthatkind.
1
The recent House of Lords case of RvG
2
is concerned
with the interpretation of section 58.It followsa series of decisions in theCourt of
Appeal which attempt to give the section a suitably constrained meaning.There
are many things wrong with this ruling, but perhaps the most shocking is that a
person who possesses information fora purpose unconnectedwith terrorism may
nevertheless be quite properly convicted under section 58 of theTerrorism Act.
RvGconcerned a defendant whogathered various pieces of information,i nclud-
ing plans for making bombs and various textbooks containing information relating
to explosives. He made notes on how to manufacture explosives. It was also alleged
that he drew aplan o f aTerritorial Armyce ntre, identi¢ed the location of the armoury
and wrote down plans to attack the centre and kidnap the caretaker. Extremist mate-
rial containing ‘his observations on the waging of Jihad in Great Britain’ was found.
G su¡ered from paranoid schizophrenia, but the defence did not suggest that
he might fall within the M’Naghten Rules.In his defence, he claimedthat he had
gathered the information with the intention of ‘winding up’ the prison guards.
The reportof Dr Qurashi, a consultant forensic psychiatrist,suggested thatcollec-
tion of the material was a direct consequenceof G’s mental illness and the psycho-
tic delusionsit produced; G believed thatprison o⁄cers werewhispering through
his cell door through the night in orderto provoke and antagonise him.
3
Could G
be convicted of an o¡ence under section 58(1)?
n
School of Law, University of Warwick.Thanks go toAdrian Hunt and RogerLe ngfor their valuable
comments.
1 s 58 existed in similar form relating to acts of terrorism connected to the a¡airs of Northern Ire-
land. See the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, s 16Bas amended by the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,s 82.
2 [2009] UKHL 13.This was a unanimous decision.The Appellate Committee’s reportwas prepared
by Lord Rodger.
3 Dr Qurashi’s reportstates: ‘It is myopinion that G’sal legedcr iminal behaviour, in terms of gener-
ating the written material,was indeed a direct consequence of an untreated, severe psychoticillness
r2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation r2009 The Modern LawReview Limited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2009) 72(6) 98 4^1015
To continue reading
Request your trial