Altimimi, R. v

For an offence under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the possession must give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant intended the article to be used for the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. A conviction remains safe despite the absence of a later-formulated direction if the jury’s verdict necessarily establishes that issue. In sentencing multiple terrorism offences, a judge may assess the overall criminality and impose concurrent terms to reflect the proper total sentence. An appellate court will not interfere where that assessment is sound.

The applicant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of six offences under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and of acquisition and attempted possession of criminal property. The section 57 counts concerned terrorist material found on computers connected with two addresses in which he had an interest.

His defence was that he did not possess the computers or know their contents. He also relied on the fact that some files were compressed and there was no evidence that they had been opened. After the single judge refused leave, he renewed his application against conviction and sentence. He contended that the jury had not been directed in accordance with R v Zafar & Ors [2008] 2 Cr App R 8.

1. The applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The original complaints about the summing-up disclosed no arguable error. The trial judge gave accurate and readily understandable directions on possession.

2. The court applied the construction of section 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 stated in R v Zafar & Ors [2008] 2 Cr App R 8. The jury had to be satisfied that the circumstances of possession gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicant intended the material to be used for terrorist purposes.

   Although the trial predated that decision and the judge had not directed the jury in those express terms, the prosecution case was that the applicant retained the material for use when required. On the jury’s verdicts that he possessed it, the only available conclusion was that it was intended for that use. The omitted formulation could therefore make no difference, and the convictions were safe.

3. On sentence, the judge was entitled to consider the terrorism offences as a whole and to fix an overall sentence before deciding to impose concurrent terms. The nine-year concurrent terms reflected the overall criminality. Their proximity to the ten-year maximum for a single offence did not disclose error, and there were no reasonable grounds for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused: [2008] EWCA Crim 2829.
• Crown Court at Manchester — convicted on 4 and 5 July 2007 of six section 57 terrorism offences and two criminal-property offences; sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on each terrorism count and concurrent terms of 12 months on the remaining counts.