I can’t link to the Court of Appeal judgment yet: I will when it’s available. But Samina Malik’s conviction under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been quashed, on the basis that the jury may have become confused about the scope of the provision. Some of the evidence put before them was material that would not actually have helped any terrorist, but was simply propaganda: the Court of Appeal has said that the provision does not catch “information” of that kind.

That’s all fair enough; but I do wonder about the CPS’s decision to let the matter now drop, presumably on the basis that there is no public interest in pursuing a conviction. Is it really all that clear that a court would give her a non-custodial sentence, bearing in mind the CPS would present evidence that she possessed the al-Qaeda Manual, the Terrorist’s Handbook and the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook? And even if it would, can it ever be right for the CPS to drop a terrorism prosecution if it claims it has clear evidence of guilt? I’d have thought the more proper course would have been to seek a retrial, but not oppose bail.

2008-06-17T17:30:00+00:00Tags: , |