Amjad v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

On 28th October 2015 in the Crown Court at The City, the Defendant was convicted of possession of a record containing information contrary to s.58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. On 11th December 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. The Defendant appealed against conviction by leave of the single judge.

On 5th November 2013, a search of the Defendant's home revealed a large quantity of documents including publications titled "Defence of the Muslim Lands" and "The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihaad." A notebook contained a handwritten list of fitness requirements for a Mujahaddin fighter, described as "Mujahid minimum training." Computers, phones, and laptops from the Defendant's residence did not reveal internet searches related to the material.

The Crown's case was that, in the context of other anti-western documents found and their provenance, the handwritten list was intended to assist someone planning to commit an act of terrorism. Police internet searches revealed a similar list in a document titled "Crusaders War on Iraq" and a Wikipedia reference attributing its author, "Yusuf," as a terrorist. The Crown suggested the similarity was no coincidence, linking the Defendant's list to known terrorist material.

The Defendant did not answer questions in interview and claimed the material was merely a fitness regime given by a friend years earlier, unrelated to terrorist beliefs. The Defendant denied knowledge of Yusuf or the "Crusaders War" document and relied on good character evidence.

The central issue was whether the fitness list was an innocent regime or a document designed to further acts of terrorism by the Defendant or others.

Police officers found an almost identical list of exercises on the Islamic Awakening website and located "Crusaders War," containing similar phraseology. The officers did not know the authorship or posting dates of the online materials.

The Defendant told the jury that a person named Shiraz from a local sports centre provided the exercise list, which was copied into the notebook but later abandoned due to difficulty. The Defendant denied fabricating this account despite its absence from his Defence Statement and maintained he did not hold the beliefs expressed in the other documents.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the open source material found on the internet was admissible to establish the intention behind the handwritten fitness list.
2. Whether the admission of anonymous hearsay evidence was lawful under common law, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
3. Whether the admission of such evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.
4. Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the information possessed was designed to provide practical assistance to terrorism.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in admitting open source internet material identifying the author of the original list, as there was no legal power to admit anonymous hearsay evidence under relevant statutes or common law.
• Despite warnings, the admission of this evidence led to an unsafe conviction.

Crown's Arguments

• The material found both at the Defendant's home and online was hearsay but admissible under hearsay provisions, although not explicitly referenced by the trial judge.
• Even without the disputed open source evidence, the remaining evidence was strong enough to support conviction.
• The online sources consistently attributed the fitness regime to Yusuf, linked to Al-Qaeda and terrorism, supporting the Crown's case.
• The Crown was not required to prove the truth of the online material, only that it was similar and linked to terrorism, making it relevant to the Terrorism Act 2000.
• The trial judge's directions to the jury mitigated any potential prejudice from the admission of the open source material.
• The Crown did not raise hearsay framework arguments below and relied on the residual discretion under s78 of PACE 1984 for admission.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed whether the handwritten fitness list was designed to provide practical assistance to terrorism, as required by s58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. It accepted the Crown's position that similarity to online material linked to terrorism was relevant to establishing this design, shifting the burden to the defence to show an innocent purpose.

The court found no hearsay or anonymous hearsay issue because the online evidence was not relied upon for truth but for similarity and context. The Crown's evidence aimed to show the perception of Yusuf as a terrorist rather than prove Yusuf's authorship or terrorist status as fact.

The Recorder's directions to the jury carefully limited the use of the open source material, warning against convicting solely on its basis and emphasizing the unknown authorship and timing of the online documents.

The court noted the Crown's failure to call expert evidence on the provenance or authenticity of the open source material but recognized the trial judge's discretion under s78 PACE 1984 to admit the evidence with caution.

The court was mindful of the potentially prejudicial vocabulary in the material but was satisfied that the trial judge's strong warnings sufficiently safeguarded fairness.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the conviction, confirming that admission of the open source material, with appropriate jury directions, did not render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe. The decision clarifies that evidence showing similarity to terrorist-linked material may be admissible to establish the nature of information under the Terrorism Act 2000, even if the truth of the online material is not proven. No new precedent was set beyond affirming the trial judge's exercise of discretion in evidential rulings and jury directions.