R v Habib Ahmed

For registered terrorism offenders, a statutory right to use a vehicle is a lawful right to control, manage or operate it. It does not require an immediate practical ability to access the vehicle or an intention to drive it.

Under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, contact details include current telephone numbers and email addresses which an offender uses, or may use, to contact others or by which others contact the offender. They are not confined to details enabling direct contact by the police.

In a prosecution for breach of notification requirements, the fact that the regime follows terrorism convictions may be relevant to reasonable excuse and seriousness of compliance, subject to careful trial management.

The applicant was charged with ten offences of failing to comply with notification requirements imposed on registered terrorism offenders under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. The charges included failure to notify a right to use a vehicle and failures to notify contact details.

At a preparatory hearing, His Honour Judge Field KC rejected the applicant’s proposed interpretations of the notification provisions and made rulings on the admissibility of evidence concerning the prior terrorism convictions that led to the notification regime. The applicant sought a three-day extension of time to apply for leave to appeal four aspects of the ruling.

The issues were the meaning of a right to use a vehicle, the scope of notifiable contact details, and whether the jury could be told in general terms why the applicant was subject to the regime.

1. The applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal were refused. None of the four proposed grounds had any prospect of success. Although the court would have extended time had there been merit, no purpose would be served by doing so.

2. For section 48(4C) of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, a right to use a vehicle means a right to control, manage or operate it. The court agreed with R v R [2021] EWCA Crim 35 that this is fact-specific. The provision does not require immediate or ready access to the vehicle. A person may have a lawful right to use a car despite not having its keys or despite the car being temporarily unavailable. Access may be evidence relevant to control or management, but it is not determinative.

3. The court upheld the construction of contact details in sections 47, 48 and 60. The obligation extends to current, live telephone numbers and email addresses that an offender uses or may use to contact others, or through which others contact the offender. It is not confined to details used by the police for direct communication. Whether a particular detail qualifies remains a question of fact, and may include an intermediary’s contact details.

4. The reason for the notification regime was relevant at trial. It could bear upon whether an alleged failure arose from innocent oversight or from insufficient regard for the obligations, and upon any reasonable-excuse defence. The jury could be told that the regime followed terrorism convictions, but not unnecessary particulars of those convictions. The court also held that the indictment must be made available to the jury. The precise explanation and directions remained matters for case management, and disclosed no error of law.

5. The court initially authorised publication of an anonymised judgment under section 37(4) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, but postponed publication until the trial ended under section 4(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The cover sheet records that the proceedings later concluded, the reporting restrictions were discharged, and publication without anonymisation was permitted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the applicant’s applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal: [2024] EWCA Crim 1673.

• Crown Court at Manchester At a preparatory hearing, His Honour Judge Field KC gave a written ruling dated 18 June 2024 on the statutory interpretation and evidential issues. The Court of Appeal upheld those rulings.