(Un)reasonable excuses – On R v Dunleavy, R v Copeland, and Section 58
| Published date | 01 November 2022 |
| Author | Kajsa E. Dinesson |
| Date | 01 November 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12721 |
bs_bs_banner
Modern Law Review
DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12721
(Un)reasonable excuses – On RvDunleavy,Rv
Copeland, and Section 58
Kajsa E. Dinesson∗
RvDunleavy and RvCopeland raise a series of questions as to the balance between risk-
management and rights protections in the construction of criminal oences. This note compares
and critically assesses these recent cases and the oences they concern, advocatingfor the refor m
of section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with particular reference to the treatment of Autism
Spectrum Disorder to date. The current form of section 58, it is argued, speaks to broader
challenges facing both UK counter-terrorism policy and criminal law in their balancing of r isks
and rights. To achieve a clearer and fairer oence, a broadly interpreted lawful object defence
concerned with act-types rather than act-tokens, ought to replacethe cur rent reasonableexcuse
defence.
INTRODUCTION
The ‘Collection of Information’ ter rorism oence, created by section 58 of the
Terrorism Act 2000, criminalises the collection, viewing and accessing of cer-
tain information that would be useful to a terrorist-to-be in notoriously broad
and vague terms. A wide range of information, and therefore conduct,may be
captured by the oence. For such a broad oence, a suciently wide defence
is necessary to achieve internal balance. As it is, section 58 lacks such balance,
with important implications for defendants and beyond. Exploring the recent
cases of RvDunleavy and RvCopeland and analysing the facts, the defen-
dants, and the charges, this article advocates replacing the section 58 reasonable
excuse defence with a lawful object defence that recognises self-education. It
does so with particular consideration for the treatment of Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) under the section 58 oence to date. It is suggested that the
need for a review of section 58 is part of a greater need for reassessment of the
UK approach to counter-terrorism, and a reconsideration of the narrow con-
ception of security that has justied its trajectory towards increasingly intrusive
criminalisation.
∗Kajsa Dinesson is a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh. Special thanks to Dr Andrew
Cornford and Professor Sharon Cowanat the University of Edinburgh.Thanks also to the a nonymous
reviewer, for whose comments this note is much improved.
© 2022 The Authors. The Modern Law Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Modern Law Review Limited.
(2022)85(6) MLR 1550–1561
Thisis an open access ar ticle under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attr ibution License,which permits use,distr ibution and reproduction
in any medium,provided the original work is properly cited.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting