Jenny Booth and agencies
Awaab Iqbal, Akbar Butt, Usman Malik, Irfan Raja, Aitzaz Zafar
Posted on 02/13/2008 12:00:26 PM PST by Stoat
Awaab Iqbal, Akbar Butt, Usman Malik, Irfan Raja, Aitzaz Zafar
Click here to view Mohammed Irfan Raja's letter to his parents
The Court of Appeal has today issued a landmark ruling on freedom of thought, by quashing the convictions of five young men jailed over the possession of extremist literature.
The judge at the men's original trial said that they had become “intoxicated” by terrorist propaganda. Today Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, sitting with two other judges, said that there was insufficient evidence that the men had ever meant to take action on the extremist material, and ordered their release.
The five — four Bradford University students and an Essex schoolboy — were arrested after Mohammed Irfan Raja ran away from his home in Ilford, East London, in February 2006 to join his four friends, after getting to know them through online chatrooms used by extremist recruiters.
This is a major setback for the police 
He left a note for his parents saying that he was going to fight abroad and that they would meet again in heaven, the Old Bailey heard last year.
Within days he realised his mistake and returned home, only to find that his shocked parents had already alerted the police. Mr Raja co-operated with detectives, leading to the arrest of all five of the group and the collection of the extremist material. This included publications popular among extreme Islamist organisations, encouraging Muslims to fight. One of the five had also used a computer to superimpose his own face on a montage of the 9/11 hijackers.
At their trial, all denied having articles for terrorism and said that the material, downloaded from various internet sites, was not intended to encourage terrorism or martyrdom. They denied having extremist views and some said that they were researching ideology and other matters. They said that they were being prosecuted for what they had read, not for anything they had done.
On July 24 last year Mohammed Irfan Raja, now 20, of Ilford, East London, and students Awaab Iqbal, 20, and Usman Ahmed Malik, 22, both of Bradford, West Yorkshire; Aitzaz Zafar, 21, of Rochdale, Lancashire; and Akbar Butt, 21, of Southall, West London, were convicted of offences of possessing articles for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, contrary to section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Section 57 provides that “a person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism”.
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
Mr Raja was sentenced to two years' youth detention, Mr Zafar and Mr Iqbal had been given three years' detention, Mr Malik was sent to prison for three years and Mr Butt was given 27 months' detention.
When sentencing, the Recorder of London, Judge Peter Beaumont, said that the men were preparing to train in Pakistan and then fight in Afghanistan against its allies, which included British soldiers.
The prosecution had relied on a "maverick use" of the law which had never been intended by Parliament, the appeal lawyers said.
Joel Bennathan, QC, for Mr Zafar, told the Court of Appeal: "The evidence at trial was that he made no attempt to conceal his very large collection of pro-jihadi sermons and lectures. His computer had no password, nor was any significant material encrypted or deleted."
All five were present in court for today's ruling.
Allowing their appeals, Lord Phillips, sitting with Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Bean in London, said: “Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use section 57 for a purpose for which it was not intended . . .
“We have concluded that, if section 57 is to have the certainty of meaning that the law requires, it must be interpreted in a way that requires a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism."
He added: “We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury, whether by the prosecution or by the Recorder, that the case that the appellants had to face was that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts.
“We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case.”
The Crown is considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords as the case raises matters of public importance, the court was told. Prosecutors are not seeking a retrial.
Mr Malik’s solicitor, Saghir Hussein, said later: “This is a landmark judgment in a test case over the innocent possession of materials, including books and speech.
“It was very difficult in the current climate for any jury to decide on anything apart from conviction. However, a more detached and informed court has recognised the draconian nature of Sections 57/58. This will have implications for other cases, such as those alleging the glorification of terrorism.”
Imran Khan, solicitor for Mr Zafar, said that his client was "over the moon" at the ruling. Young Muslims seeking to explore the world of their religion should no longer be victimised, he said.
He said that the Government should look carefully at the judgment and reconsider the current legislation. “This is a good judgment for the Muslim community and the community at large,” he said
BBC NEWS UK Five students win terror appeal
Please say a prayer for Great Britain
Akbar Butt ?
Cousin of Hugh Jass.
“a person commits an offense if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.”
It would take factors other than the mere possession of the material for conviction, for example, a plane ticket to Afghanistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.