The Quest for a Satisfactory Definition of Terrorism: R v Gul

Published date01 September 2014
Date01 September 2014
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12090
CASES
The Quest for a Satisfactory Definition of Terrorism:
RvGul
Alan Greene*
The UK Supreme Court judgment in RvGul presented a unique opportunity for a judicial
appraisal of the definition of terrorism contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. While
the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful in his challenge, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the
state’s argument that reliance on prosecutorial discretion could mitigate certain absurd applications
of the section 1 definition of terrorism, eg the labelling of acts of UK or other military forces as
terrorist, has potentially wide-raging implications for the UK’s counter-terrorism measures. In
addition, the powerful obiter dictum arguing in favour of a reform of this definition and a
‘root-and-branch’ review of counter-terrorism legislation is a strong rebuke of recent high profile
misapplications of such powers.
INTRODUCTION
The recent Supreme Court decision in RvGul1(Gul) presented a unique
opportunity for the definition of terrorism contained in section 1 of the Ter-
rorism Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) to be analysed by the UK courts. The appellant
had not himself perpetrated a terrorist attack, but had circulated videos portray-
ing and lauding alleged terrorist attacks. Therefore, whether the accused’s actions
constituted a terrorist offence was necessarily dependent upon whether another
person’s actions – in this instance the subject matter contained in the videos the
accused disseminated – amounted to terrorism under section 1 of the 2000 Act.
The case highlights legitimate concerns regarding the broad nature of this
definition and some of the questionable conclusions that can flow from this
definition. The Court’s powerful obiter dictum arguing in favour of a reform of
this definition and a ‘root-and-branch’ review of counter-terrorism legislation is
laudable; however in attempting an adequate and universal definition in law, R
vGul throws up more fundamental questions about the concept of terrorism in
general.
FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED BY GUL
The appellant, Mohammed Gul – born in Libya but who lived most of his life
in the UK and was a British citizen – was convicted under section 2 of the
*Lecturer in Law, Durham Law School. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for useful
feedback, and Natasa Mavronicola for her suggestions.
bs_bs_banner
© 2014 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2014 The Modern Law Review Limited. (2014) 77(5) MLR 780–807
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

To continue reading

Request your trial

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