[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.If so, and provided the defendant has the necessary mens rea, then theonly issue will be whether the defendant has a reasonable excuse. 86 The jury mustaccordingly decide whether the explanation given for possessing the document is in factreasonable given the particular facts and circumstances of the case.8785Ibid., p.962.86Quotation from R.v.Muhammed [2010] EWCA Crim 227: terrorism preparing an act of terrorism , CriminalLaw and Justice Weekly (20 March 2010).87Hemming, The practical application of counter-terrorism legislation in England and Wales , p.963.33THE USE OF THE INTERNET FOR TERRORIST PURPOSES103.The Terrorism Act 2006 established (in its section 5) the offence of committingacts in preparation for terrorism.This section was designed to deal with cases in whichindividuals actively planning acts of terrorism were stopped before they completed orattempted a substantive terrorist act.88104.Section 5 has been particularly useful in lone wolf cases, in which an offenderis acting alone, there is insufficient evidence to establish the basis of a conspiracy chargebecause it cannot be proven that more than one person was involved, or authorities donot know in detail the offence that was being planned.The offence does not requireproof of an identifiable final act or acts of terrorism, but the prosecution must provea specific intent to commit a terrorist act or to assist another to do so.Several indi-viduals have been convicted of the offence in the United Kingdom and sentenced tovarying terms of imprisonment, including life imprisonment.89105.The case of R v.Terence Roy Brown [2011] EWCA Crim 2751, is an example ofthe utility of provisions such as section 58.R v.Terence Roy BrownTerence Roy Brown, a citizen of the United Kingdom, ran an online business, in which headvertised and sold an annual edition of a CD-ROM that he called the Anarchist s Cook-book (the title is nearly identical to that of a well-known book called The Anarchist Cook-book).Rather than a single publication, however, these discs contained 10,322 files, someof which were complete publications in their own right.These included terrorist manualssuch as the Al-Qaida Manual and instructions for the manufacture of different forms ofexplosives and the construction of bombs.Other files consisted of instructions for makingpoisons, how to avoid attracting the attention of authorities when travelling and weapons-handling techniques.In an apparent effort to circumvent the law, Mr.Brown posted dis-claimers on the website advertising the publication, stating that the instructions they con-tained might be illegal or dangerous to perform and were intended for reading pleasureand historical value only.It was clear on investigation that Mr.Brown was motivated purelyby commercial incentives.It was also apparent that he deliberately had expanded his col-lection in the immediate aftermath of the July 2005 London bombs and had significantlyincreased his profit as a result.In March 2011, Mr.Brown was convicted of seven counts under the Terrorism Act 2000(section 58) relating to the collection of information that could have been used to prepareor commit acts of terrorism, two counts under the Terrorism Act 2006 (section 2) relatingto the dissemination of terrorist publications and an offence under the Proceeds of CrimeAct 2002 relating to the transfer of criminal property (his use of the profits from hisbusiness).a88Ibid., p.964.8934 Ibid.CHAPTER III.POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKSThe excuse raised by Mr.Brown at trial was that his activities amounted to no more thanthe lawful exercise of his right to freedom of expression in relation to material that wasfreely available on the Internet and that was similar in type, if not volume, to that sold byother online booksellers.The same points were raised during an unsuccessful application toappeal conviction, during which the court ruled that the restriction of Brown s article 10rights in relation to material that was likely to assist terrorists was justified and proportion-ate.The court also affirmed the discretion of the prosecuting authorities not to charge everyindividual who might have committed an offence, but to consider instead each case on itsown merits.a Businessman who published bomb-makers handbook facing lengthy spell in jail , Daily Mail, 9 March2011.Available from www.dailymail.co
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]