Sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000: Interpretation Update
| Author | Ben Middleton |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.3.568 |
| Published date | 01 June 2009 |
| Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Sections 57 and 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000:
Interpretation Update
R vG; R vJ [2009] UKHL 13
Keywords Reasonable excuse; Documents; Possession of information;
Reverse burden; Defence
G was a paranoid schizophrenic who had been charged under s. 58 of
the Terrorism Act 2000 with collecting, whilst in prison, information
likely to be useful to a terrorist. Section 58(1) provides that a person
commits an offence if he (a) ‘collects or makes a record of information of
a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism’ or (b) ‘if he possesses a document or record containing
information of that kind’. Under s. 58(3) it is a defence for a person
charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a
reasonable excuse for his action or possession. In the case of R vK[2008]
EWCA Crim 85, [2008] 2 WLR 1026, the Court of Appeal ruled (at [15]),
that a reasonable excuse was simply an explanation that the information
is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or
preparation of an act of terrorism, even if that explanation denoted non-
terrorism-related criminal conduct. G asserted in his defence that he had
collected the information to antagonise the prison staff, who he believed
were whispering about him and provoking him. The Court of Appeal
considered itself bound by the decision in Kand determined that this
could amount to a reasonable excuse.
J had been found in the possession of a number of items, including
the Al-Qaeda training manual and military training documents. He had
been charged with five counts of the s. 58 offence and one count
contrary to s. 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which provides that ‘a
person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances
which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a
purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of
an act of terrorism’, It is a defence under s. 57(2) for a person charged to
prove that his possession of the article was not for such a purpose.
Reverse burdens of proof under the 2000 Act are governed by s. 118.
Under this section, if a person adduces evidence that is sufficient to raise
an issue with respect to the matter, the court or jury shall assume that
the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable
doubt that it is not. J had attempted to provide an explanation for each
of the counts against him. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal
concluded that where a defendant claimed that he had a reasonable
excuse for the possession in question, it was necessary for the Crown to
prove that the possession was for a terrorist purpose. J submitted that where
there was evidence raising a defence under s. 57(2), the Crown must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s possession was for
203The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 203–206
doi:1350/jcla.2009.73.3.568
To continue reading
Request your trial