Hundal & Anor, R v

Under Terrorism Act 2000, section 11 criminalises belonging to a proscribed organisation while the defendant is within the United Kingdom. Foreign membership and activities may establish that status. This is not an impermissible extra-territorial application of the criminal law, nor does it create retrospective guilt under Article 7.

A compulsory counter-terrorism search which reveals documents or material already in existence does not, without more, infringe the Article 6 rights to silence and against self-incrimination. In the circumstances of terrorism controls, the search power was justified and proportionate.

The appellants were convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of belonging to the International Sikh Youth Federation, a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Each received 30 months’ imprisonment.

They entered the United Kingdom from France after attending a meeting in Germany. Both denied that they remained members. They contended that membership and activities in Germany, where the organisation was not proscribed, could not found liability in this jurisdiction. They also challenged the use of documents found during compulsory searches under Schedule 7, relying on Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. One appellant further challenged the refusal of an adjournment to explore proposed expert evidence.

1. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The court upheld the judge’s rejection of every ground. The sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment were quashed and substituted with sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment.

2. Section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 applied because each appellant was in the United Kingdom while a member of the proscribed organisation. The provision did not punish the foreign act of joining. Evidence of membership and activities abroad was nevertheless admissible and relevant to establish the status which made their presence in this jurisdiction criminal. Construing the provision otherwise would defeat the statutory purpose by permitting a person to avoid it merely by joining a foreign branch.

3. The section 11(2) defence required prior membership before proscription and no participation in the organisation’s activities while it was proscribed. It was not confined to activities in the United Kingdom. The appellants’ guilt therefore arose upon their arrival in this country, not retrospectively when they joined or acted abroad. Article 7 did not assist them.

4. The court applied R v Kearns [2002] 1 WLR 2815. A compulsory search which brings pre-existing and independent material to light is distinct from compelling an accused to make an admission or create evidence. It did not infringe Article 6. In any event, the Schedule 7 search was justified and proportionate for public protection against terrorism.

5. The refusal of an adjournment was not erroneous. The proposed expert evidence had no direct relevance to the issues for the jury, and the suggested inquiry was speculative.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2004] EWCA Crim 389, dismissed the appeals against conviction but allowed the sentence appeals by substituting 12 months’ imprisonment for 30 months.
• Crown Court at Maidstone — on 19 July 2002, convicted both appellants of belonging to a proscribed organisation contrary to section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and sentenced each to 30 months’ imprisonment.