R v Tasnia Ahmed

For a submission of no case to answer, the question is whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could on one possible view of the prosecution evidence reach the necessary inference. The court does not decide which competing interpretation of the evidence is preferable.

Where an offence requires information that might be of material assistance, the statutory threshold is potential assistance, not proof that the information would have secured prevention, prosecution or conviction. Evidence of a third party’s convictions and related conduct may be admissible to illuminate the defendant’s state of mind, including whether the defendant regarded that person’s stated terrorist intentions as serious. The jury must remain focused on the defendant’s subjective knowledge or belief. A reasonable-excuse defence need not be left where it is neither raised nor supported by evidence.

The applicant was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of two counts of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism, contrary to section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000. She was sentenced to a suspended custodial term with community requirements.

The prosecution case was that the applicant had received messages from Al-Arfat Hassan concerning intended terrorist acts, but failed to disclose them before and after his arrest. The defence case was that she treated his statements as artistic or personal joking and did not know or believe that they represented genuine terrorist intentions.

The renewed application for leave challenged the refusal of a submission of no case to answer, evidential rulings, and the judge’s directions concerning Convention rights, reasonable excuse, knowledge or belief, good character, and Hassan’s convictions and internet searches.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. None of the proposed grounds was arguable, and the convictions were not shown to be unsafe.

1. No case to answer. The interpretation of the prosecution and defence timelines, including whether the applicant believed Hassan’s statements, was a question for the jury. Applying R v G and F [2012] EWCA Crim 1756, the relevant question was whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could on one possible view of the evidence infer the applicant’s requisite knowledge or belief. That threshold was plainly met. The information could be of material assistance because section 38B used “might”, rather than “would”.

2. Admissibility of Hassan’s conduct. His convictions, with a short factual description, and evidence of his searches for knives and chemicals were relevant to whether he was a serious would-be terrorist rather than a fantasist. That issue in turn bore on whether the applicant took his messages seriously and on whether her information might assist the authorities. The evidence was admissible and there was no basis for exclusion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The jury was directed that Hassan’s convictions did not establish the applicant’s guilt.

3. Excluded defence evidence. Cannabis found in the car of Hassan’s brother did not show that Hassan possessed or knew of it. Messages to other young women did not illuminate the applicant’s subjective state of mind, particularly where there was no evidence of what those women understood or believed. The evidence was therefore irrelevant.

4. Directions. Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention protect qualified rights, but the prosecution concerned alleged information about planned terrorism, not ordinary religious discussion or expression. The judge’s direction about the possible legitimate religious use of “jihad” adequately addressed the risk of misconception. The statutory reasonable-excuse defence under section 38B(4) did not have to be left because it was not raised and there was no evidence capable of supporting it. The directions on knowledge or belief, good character, and Hassan’s convictions and searches were legally adequate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
• Woolwich Crown Court: following trial before His Honour Judge Kinch KC and a jury, the applicant was convicted on 25 April 2024 and sentenced on 16 July 2024.