Appeals Court Quashes Students’ Thought-Crime Convictions

Five British students, all Muslim, had been convicted in an English court for possession of extremist literature. According to the BBC they “were jailed for between two and three years each by the Old Bailey for downloading and sharing extremist terrorism-related material.” On Wednesday, an Appeals Court threw those convictions out. The judges said that there was no evidence that they were planning on committing any terrorist activity. In other words, British courts cannot condemn people to prison for “thought-crime.”

The law in question was Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is one of the most clearly written laws this side of the Ten Commandments. Section 57 provides: “(1) 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. (2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.” If such a defense is raised, then the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a purpose in possessing that information.

In its decision, the Appeals Court zeroed in on the words “connected with,” and determined that the term was simply too broad. Going to Pakistan to undergo training and then going to fight in Afghanistan could be considered committing an act of terror, but only if the final stage were reached. The judges doubted that having an airline ticket to Pakistan was sufficient proof, and then wondered if possession of the check book used to pay for the plane ticket could be considered possession of items in “connection with.” Even the prosecutors got a bit queasy at that suggestion.

Imran Khan, solicitor for one of the accused and namesake of the great Pakistani cricketer, said, “Young Muslim men before this judgement could have been prosecuted simply for simply [sic] looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes.” That is the very definition of a police state, where simply visiting a website, borrowing a book or being handed a pamphlet is a crime.

One of the accused, Usman Malik, said, “It is a great thing to live in a country where the Lord Chief Justice takes the time from hearing important cases to see if a group of unknown students have been fairly convicted for reading the wrong kind of literature.” Indeed, it is. And greater still is to live in a country where the judges can tell the government that it has gone to far – and have it stick.

© Copyright 2008 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home