Pwr and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Neutral Citation[2022] UKSC 2
CourtSupreme Court
Supreme Court *Pwr and others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] UKSC 2

2021 Nov 18; 2022 Jan 26

Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose JJSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden

Crime - Terrorism - Wearing, carrying or displaying article showing support for proscribed organisation - Defendants carrying flags of proscribed organisation at protest - Whether offence of strict liability - Whether offence compatible with Convention right to freedom of expression - Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 10 - Terrorism Act 2000 (c 11), s 13(1)

The defendants took part in a demonstration in central London against the perceived actions of the Turkish state in north-eastern Syria. Each carried a flag of the Kurdistan Workers Party, an organisation which was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000F1. The defendants were each convicted in the magistrates’ court of carrying an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse suspicion that he was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the 2000 Act. The Crown Court dismissed the defendants’ appeals, holding that section 13(1) created an offence of strict liability and was not incompatible with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsF2. The Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division dismissed the defendants’ appeal by way of case stated.

On the defendants’ further appeal—

Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that a limited mental element was indisputably required under section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 in the sense that the defendant had to know that he or she was wearing or carrying or displaying the relevant article; that, however, an examination of the words, context and purpose of section 13(1) led to the conclusion that the strong common law presumption of mens rea was rebutted by necessary implication, with the consequence that section 13(1) was a strict liability offence with no extra mental element required over and above such knowledge; that, in particular, (i) the words of section 13(1), which imposed an objective requirement of arousing “reasonable suspicion”, did not readily lend themselves to the importation of a subjective element, such as knowledge or intention, (ii) the context showed that section 13(1) would be redundant if mens rea were required, since then anyone who committed an offence under section 13(1) would almost inevitably be committing an offence under sections 11 or 12 of the 2000 Act, which both required mens rea and carried much higher maximum sentences, and (iii) the purposes of section 13(1) were to avoid others becoming aware of proscribed organisations and to avoid the public disorder that might result from reaction against displays of support for such organisations, neither of which were concerned with the defendant’s intention or knowledge; and that, accordingly, on its true construction section 13(1) did not require that the defendant had “knowingly” or “intentionally” aroused reasonable suspicion that he was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or intended to express support for a proscribed organisation, or known that the organisation in question was a proscribed organisation (post, paras 26, 29, 3438, 4445, 55, 58, 80).

Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, HL(E) and B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428, HL(E) applied.

R v Choudary [2018] 1 WLR 695, CA considered.

(2) That, as was common ground, section 13(1) of the 2000 Act constituted an interference with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by article 10 of the Human Rights Convention; that, however, such interference was justified for the purposes of article 10(2) since (i) it was prescribed by law, in that section 13(1) was expressed in clear terms and formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to foresee the legal consequences that a given action would entail, (ii) it pursued two of the legitimate aims set out in article 10(2), namely the interests of national security and the prevention of disorder and (iii) it was necessary in a democratic society to achieve those aims and proportionate to those aims, striking a fair balance between the position of the participants in the prohibited activity and the proper interest of the community in its security; that, further, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights did not contain any principle that a restriction on freedom of expression could only be justified where the expression included an incitement to violence; and that, accordingly, the offence under section 13(1) was compatible with article 10, notwithstanding the fact that it was an offence of strict liability (post, paras 6064, 66, 68, 77, 79, 80).

Perinçek v Switzerland (2015) 63 EHRR 6, ECtHR (GC) and Alekhina v Russia (Application No 38004/12) (2018) 68 EHRR 14, ECtHR considered.

Decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division [2020] EWHC 798 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 3623 affirmed.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows JJSC and Lady Arden:

Alekhina v Russia (Application No 38004/12) (2018) 68 EHRR 14, ECtHR

B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428; [2000] 2 WLR 452; [2000] 1 All ER 833; [2000] 2 Cr App R 65, HL(E)

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 533, SC(E)

Nurse v Republic of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 43; [2021] AC 1; [2020] 2 WLR 131, PC

O’Moran v Director of Public Prosecutions [1975] QB 864; [1975] 2 WLR 413; [1975] 1 All ER 473, DC

Perinçek v Switzerland (Application No 27510/08) (2015) 63 EHRR 6, ECtHR (GC)

R v Choudary [2016] EWCA Crim 1436; [2018] 1 WLR 695; [2017] 3 All ER 459, CA

R v Lane [2018] UKSC 36; [2018] 1 WLR 3647; [2019] 1 All ER 299; [2018] 2 Cr App R 35, SC(E)

R v Rowe [2007] EWCA Crim 635; [2007] QB 975; [2007] 3 WLR 177; [2007] 3 All ER 36; [2007] 2 Cr App R 14, CA

R (Lord Carlile of Berriew) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 60; [2015] AC 945; [2014] 3 WLR 1404; [2015] 2 All ER 453, SC(E)

Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132; [1969] 2 WLR 470; [1969] 1 All ER 347; 53 Cr App R 221, HL(E)

Yefimov v Russia (Application Nos 12385/15 and 51619/15) (unreported) 7 December 2021, ECtHR

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Arslan v Turkey (Application No 23462/94) (1999) 31 EHRR 9, ECtHR (GC)

Baskaya v Turkey (Application Nos 23536/94 and 24408/94) (1999) 31 EHRR 10, ECtHR (GC)

Erdogdu v Turkey (Application No 25723/94) (2000) 34 EHRR 50, ECtHR

Gallagher, In re [2019] UKSC 3; [2020] AC 185; [2019] 2 WLR 509; [2019] 3 All ER 823, SC(E) and SC(NI)

Gül v Turkey (Application No 4870/02) (2010) 52 EHRR 38, ECtHR

Hoare v United Kingdom (Application No 31211/96) [1997] EHRLR 678, EComHR

Karataş v Turkey (Application No 23168/94) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-IV, p81, ECtHR (GC)

R v Brown (Richard) [2013] UKSC 43; [2013] 4 All ER 860, SC(NI)

R v Muhamad [2002] EWCA Crim 1856; [2003] QB 1031; [2003] 2 WLR 1050, CA

R v Zafar [2008] EWCA Crim 184; [2008] QB 810; [2008] 2 WLR 1013; [2008] 4 All ER 46; [2008] 2 Cr App R 8, CA

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] UKHL 43; [2005] 1 AC 264; [2004] 3 WLR 976; [2005] 1 All ER 237; [2005] 1 Cr App R 28, HL(E)

Sunday Times v United Kingdom (Application No 6538/74) (1979) 2 EHRR 245, ECtHR

Sürek v Turkey (No 1) (Application No 26682/95) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-IV, p353, ECtHR (GC)

Sürek and Özdemir v Turkey (Application Nos 23927/94 and 24277/94) (1999) 7 BHRC 339, GC

Taş v Turkey (No 2) (Application No 6813/09) (unreported) 10 October 2017, ECtHR

Tasdemir v Turkey (Application No 38841/07) (unreported) 23 February 2010, ECtHR

Wingrove v United Kingdom (Application No 17419/90) (1996) 24 EHRR 1, ECtHR

Zana v Turkey (Application No 18954/91) (1997) 27 EHRR 667, ECtHR (GC)

APPEAL from the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division

On 3 September 2018 the defendants, Rahman Pwr, Ismail Akdogan and Rotinda Demir, were convicted by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court (District Judge Snow) of carrying or displaying an article (a flag), in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were members or supporters of a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The first and second defendants were given three-month conditional discharges and the third defendant received an absolute discharge. The defendants appealed against their convictions to the Crown Court at Southwark which, on 8 May 2019 (Judge Bartle QC and two justices) dismissed the appeals, rejecting a submission that there was no case to answer.

The defendants appealed by way of case stated. The case stated by the Crown Court asked: (1) whether the offence created by section 13 of the 2000 Act was one of strict liability; and (2) if so, was that compatible with article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, incorporated into Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. On 3 April 2020 the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (Holroyde LJ and Swift J) [2020] EWHC 798 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 3623 dismissed the appeal.

With permission granted by the Supreme Court (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin and Lord Leggatt JJSC) on 6 November 2020 the defendants appealed. The issues in the appeal, as set out in the agreed statement of facts and issues, were: (1) whether the offence created by section 13 of the 2000 Act was an offence of strict liability; and (2) whether the defendants’ convictions for offences under section 13 were compatible with article 10 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998.

The facts are stated in the judgment of Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows JJSC and Lady Arden, post, paras 611.

Joel Bennathan QC and Jude Bunting (instructed by Birnberg Peirce Ltd and Morgan Has Solicitors, Stoke Newington) for the defendants.

Louis Mably QC and Dan Pawson-Pounds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • R v Bailey an Ors
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 21 Diciembre 2022
    ...where the statute is silent as to mens rea, and that the first duty of the court is to consider the words of the statute.” 35 Pwr v DPP [2022] UKSC 2; [2022] 1 WLR 789 concerned a conviction for carrying an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse suspicions that the de......
  • Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha v Mark McLaren Class Representative Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 Diciembre 2023
    ...must be “compellingly clear”: B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428 per Lord Nicholls at p. 463–464; Pwr v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] UKSC 2 [2022] 1 WLR 789 per Lords Hamblen and Burrows JJSC and Lady Arden at 44 One reason for such an approach is that......
  • Craig Murray Against Her Majesty’s Advocate
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Justiciary
    • 25 Marzo 2022
    ...needed. There was a presumption that there required to be a mental element in statutory offences (Pwr v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] 1 WLR 789). It was accepted that publication had been intentional and that there was no need to prove an intention to break the law. It was not enou......
1 books & journal articles
  • Is Carrying a Flag in Support of a Proscribed Organisation a Strict Liability Offence?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 86-3, June 2022
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...reasoning”and noted how the offence is “concerned with the effect on other people not the intentionor knowledge of the defendant”([2022] UKSC 2 at [55]). Moreover, in words reminiscent of those of theformer PM, Margaret Thatcher, when justifying a ban on the direct broadcasting of statement......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT