R v Anjem Choudary & Anor

For an offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the prosecution must prove that the organisation was concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism; proscription alone is insufficient. Evidence of non-defendants’ conduct during the indictment period may concern the facts of the offence and be admissible under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Terrorism includes action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation. Hearsay from a co-defendant may be admitted in the interests of justice where its reliability and safe assessment by the jury can be evaluated, with an appropriate caution. Sentencing for directing a terrorist organisation is highly fact-sensitive and may justify life imprisonment despite no proof that the director personally committed violence.

At the Crown Court at Woolwich before Wall J, Anjem Choudary was convicted of directing a terrorist organisation contrary to section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and supporting a proscribed organisation contrary to section 12. Khaled Hussein was convicted of membership of a proscribed organisation contrary to section 11.

Choudary received a life sentence with a minimum term of 26 years and 358 days. Hussein received a special custodial sentence of five years, followed by a one-year extension period. The single judge refused leave to appeal. The renewed applications concerned Choudary’s conviction and sentence, and Hussein’s sentence. The central issues were the admission and use of non-defendant bad character evidence, the proof required for a section 56 offence, the use of hearsay evidence against a co-defendant, and whether either sentence was arguably excessive or wrong in principle.

Disposition. The court refused Choudary’s applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and refused Hussein’s application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. Section 56 offence. Unlike the offences under sections 11 and 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, section 56 does not depend on proof that the organisation is proscribed. It requires proof that the organisation was concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. For an offence of directing an organisation, evidence of what its members were doing was central to the charge.
2. Non-defendant evidence. Evidence of conduct by non-defendants during the indictment period, showing the activities of the organisation while Choudary was directing it, concerned the facts of the offence. It was therefore admissible under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the judge need not have proceeded under section 100. The judge’s application of the more demanding relevance test nevertheless caused no error. The evidence was highly probative, and the directions guarded against guilt by association. The decision not to exclude it under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was properly open to the judge.
3. Acts of terrorism. Sections 20(2) of the Terrorism Act 2006 and 1(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000 give terrorism a broad scope for these purposes. Action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation may qualify. The convictions and conduct relied on could therefore prove that Al-Muhajiroun was concerned in terrorism, despite the limited evidence of direct violence.
4. Hearsay. The voice note was hearsay against Choudary. It could have been admitted under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in the interests of justice. The principal considerations were reliability and the extent to which the jury could safely assess the material. The evidence was supported by its context and other evidence, and the judge gave an adequate caution. The approach was consistent with the principles restated in R v BOB [2024] EWCA Crim 1494; [2025] 1 WLR 1101.
5. Sentencing. Sentencing for section 56 is rare and particularly fact-sensitive. In the absence of a specific guideline, the judge should assess culpability and harm, considering the organisation, its activities, the acts of terrorism and the offender’s conduct, while taking account of the life maximum and statutory sentencing aims. Related guidelines may provide a useful check. Choudary’s prolonged, determined leadership and the exceptional gravity of the case justified the conclusion that his sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The absence of proof that he personally committed violence or planned a particular attack was not determinative.
6. Hussein. Hussein’s limited activities, lack of previous convictions and personal mitigation had been taken into account. His active support over more than two years, knowledge of the organisation’s association with Al-Muhajiroun, and desire for deeper involvement supported the category B assessment. The five-year sentence was moderate and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 395, the renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal was refused in both cases.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: On 23 July 2024 Wall J convicted Choudary of directing a terrorist organisation and supporting a proscribed organisation, and Hussein of membership of a proscribed organisation. On 30 July 2024 Choudary received a life sentence with a minimum term, and Hussein received a special custodial sentence.