Alamgir & Ors, R. v

Where an accused’s purpose and knowledge in encouraging support for a proscribed organisation are in issue, evidence of earlier statements, associations and materials may be relevant and admissible. It may assist the jury to understand the accused’s actual views, language, intended audience and the meaning of the indicted speech.

Such material remains admissible where its probative value is properly explained and balanced directions make clear that it is not itself charged conduct. Terrorism Act 2000 offences distinguish protected opinions and religious beliefs from conduct which encourages support for a proscribed organisation. Whether a speech crosses that boundary is ordinarily a factual question for the jury.

The appellants were convicted at the Central Criminal Court of offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 arising from speeches said to encourage support for ISIS. Khan was also convicted of arranging a meeting to support a proscribed organisation.

They challenged the admission of recordings, documents and other material concerning their activities outside the indicted occasions, described as mind-set material. Khan additionally challenged the directions concerning his asserted contact with the Security Services and alleged inadequate protection of his rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The central questions were whether the additional evidence was relevant and unfairly prejudicial, and whether the trial directions rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. All appeals against conviction were dismissed. The trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the elements of the section 12 offences and had been entitled to admit the mind-set material.

2. Whether the indicted speeches encouraged support for ISIS, and whether each appellant knew or intended that purpose, could not realistically be determined from the speeches alone. Earlier statements, reading, viewing, writing, associations and knowledge of the audience were capable of showing the appellants’ actual views, use of language and willingness to express violent Jihadi views. They could also assist the jury in deciding whether references to a Caliphate concerned ISIS’s declared Caliphate.

3. The evidence was properly probative rather than unfairly prejudicial. The judge made clear that the additional material was not charged criminal conduct, identified its limited evidential use, fairly summarised the defence case, and repeatedly directed the jury to focus on the words, purpose and ingredients of the offences. The material concerning closely associated non-defendants was also relevant background in that limited sense. Its quantity was not disproportionate.

4. On Khan’s Security Services ground, the jury was correctly directed to accept his unchallenged account of the meetings. The prosecution could nevertheless test his credit by comparing what he said he had told the officers with his public statements and conduct. That cross-examination did not create unfairness.

5. Articles 9 and 10 protect the holding and expression of beliefs, including offensive beliefs, but their qualified protections do not prevent the criminalisation of encouragement of support for a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The trial judge correctly left the jury to decide, on the evidence, whether each speech crossed the line from permissible expression into prohibited encouragement.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeals against conviction dismissed.
• Central Criminal Court — The appellants were convicted on 16 August 2016 of offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.