Amjad, R v

For an offence under section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Crown must prove that the information was designed, by its nature, to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing terrorism. It need not prove that the information is true.

Material found online and attributed to a person believed to be a terrorist is not hearsay when it is adduced only to show the existence and similarity of wording, or the fact of that perception, rather than the truth of its contents. Its admission remains subject to fairness. Clear and tailored directions may adequately prevent unfair prejudice arising from inflammatory terminology.

The appellant was convicted at Leeds Crown Court of possessing a record containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The record was a handwritten fitness-exercise list found with other material. The Crown relied on similar material discovered online and attributed to Yusuf, a person described in the online material as a terrorist.

The Recorder admitted the online material with strong warnings that it could not by itself establish guilt and that its provenance was uncertain. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the material was inadmissible anonymous hearsay and had rendered the conviction unsafe. The central issue was whether the internet material was tendered for the truth of its contents and, if admissible, whether its use made the trial unfair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The online material was not tendered to prove that Yusuf was in fact a terrorist, that he wrote the material, or that its substantive contents were true. It was tendered to show the existence of strikingly similar exercise lists online, their attribution to a person considered a terrorist, and thus to rebut coincidence. It was therefore evidence of the fact of a perception and of similarity, not hearsay.

2. Under section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Crown had to prove that the information was designed by its nature to give practical assistance to a person committing or preparing terrorism. Following R v G and R v J [2009] UKHL 13, this excludes ordinary information such as that found in a map or railway timetable. The Crown did not have to establish the truth of the information. It could prove that information was likely to be useful even if it was untrue.

3. The Crown was entitled to rely on the online material to contend that the exercise list was linked to terrorist sources and was not an innocent fitness regime. The Recorder correctly treated hearsay as beside the point and carefully limited the evidence's use. The jury were expressly directed not to convict merely because similar online material was attributed to a person believed to be a terrorist.

4. Although the Crown should have considered expert evidence on provenance, authenticity and accuracy, its omission did not make the conviction unsafe. Applying the fairness discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Recorder's warning to the jury sufficiently guarded against prejudice from inflammatory references to terrorism.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction.
• Leeds Crown Court: The appellant was convicted on 28 October 2015 and sentenced on 11 December 2015 to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.