Solicitors will know that Section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that anyone must report knowledge or suspicion that someone has committed a terrorist financing offence, based on information gathered through a trade, profession, business or employment. This must be done as soon as reasonably practicable to a constable, or SOCA.
In Rowe v R [2007] EWCA Crim 635, a full bench of the Criminal Court of Appeal has clarified several issues over offences involving preparation for terrorist activities
Mr Rowe was arrested in 2003, travelling from France to England , on the basis that he was about to embark on a terrorist venture. He was charged with two offences under section 57 of the Terrorist Act 2000 for possession of articles in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the possession was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
The articles were:
- A notebook found in his house containing instructions in his writing on assembling and operating a mortar.
- A substitution code, found in his wife's house, which included:
- A list of countries, explosive components and bombing targets each with a corresponding mobile phone model.
- Another list of countries which corresponded to English counties.
Mr Rowe's explanation for these items, only advanced at trial, was that the notebook contained notes of a trip he made in 1995 to help Muslims defend themselves against the Serbs. He said the substitution code was part of a humanitarian plan to courier items needed by Muslims attacked or persecuted in Chechnya .
The first ground of appeal was whether documents could be an article under section 57, or if Mr Rowe should instead have been charged under section 58, which specifically refers to documents.
The full bench held that documents could be articles:
- Sections 57 and 58 are indeed dealing with different aspects of activities relating to terrorism. Section 57 is dealing with possessing articles for the purposes of terrorist acts. Section 58 is dealing with collecting or holding information that is of a kind likely to be useful to those involved in acts of terrorism. Section 57 includes a specific intention, section 58 does not.
- These differences between the two sections are rational features of a statute whose aims include the prohibition of different types of support for and involvement, both direct and indirect, in terrorism. There is no basis for the conclusion that Parliament intended to have a completely separate regime for documents and records from that which applies to the articles.
This conclusion followed an interesting discussion on the powers of the Criminal Court of Appeal to depart from its own earlier decisions. The Court's view was that part of its earlier decision in R v M,Z,I, R and B [2007] EWCA Crim 218, was wrongly reached per incurium, and should not be followed.
The other issue on appeal was whether the jury has concluded that Mr Rowe was in possession of the articles for the purposes of preparing for a terrorist act separately to any purpose of engaging in the lawful defence of Muslims in Chechnya. The Court said the jury had been appropriately directed on this point, and had so decided.
In relation to the sentencing, interestingly the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge was correct to reject Mr Rowe's explanation that drug dealing financed his travels. Instead, they said the evidence showed a Muslim group financed Mr Rowe to travel, furthering Muslim fundamentalism.
The Court of Appeal reduced Mr Rowe's sentence to seven and a half years for possession of the substitution code and two and half years for possession of the mortar to be served consecutively. The original sentence was two terms of seven and a half years, to be served consecutively. This reduction was because the trial judge wrongly applied the principle of totality in the original sentencing.