The London Blasts: Media Review

TWO MONTHS ON

DAY 62: 7 September 2005

ANOTHER TERROR TRIAL

With memories of the "ricin" trial fiasco still fresh, we turn our attention to a new 'Muslim extremist' trial. Andrew Rowe, who took the name Yusuf Abdullah on converting to Islam in the mid-1990s, was arrested in October 2003, and is only now coming to court two years later, on terrorism charges.

Specifically, he is facing three charges of possessing 'articles' in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that his 'possession was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism', and one charge of making a record of information 'of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. (Telegraph, page 10)

THE LAW

Let's consider these charges.

Firstly, 'a reasonable suspicion'. You can now be convicted of possessing items that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of being about to use them to commit, prepare to commit, or instigate someone else to commit an act of terrorism.

You can now be convicted of a crime if a jury is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that your behaviour gave a reasonable suspicion of being related to a possible future terrorist attack.

As Liberty point out (pdf), the burden of proof has shifted towards the defendant, who has to demonstrate that there was an innocent purpose to the possession of 'suspect' items.

According to their analysis, as the law stands, 'it is desirable to interpret the provision such that it imposes an
evidential burden on the defendant, but thereafter the burden is on the prosecution to disprove any defence. The final burden of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains on the prosecution.'

If that was too convoluted, we can return to the simple fact that under this offence there need be no evidence of an actual criminal conspiracy with others, or actual preparations for a criminal act. The crime is looser than this.

Secondly, recording information that is 'of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

It is difficult to think of information that might not be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. What is missing is evidence of the intention behind the recording of this information.

The text of Article 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 reads thus:

57. - (1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved that an article-

(a) was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or

(b) was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public,

the court may assume that the accused possessed the article, unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

THE ITEMS

Let's get concrete.

What are the 'articles' that gave rise to suspicions of being connected with terrorism?

The most eye-catching 'article' was a sock ball with traces of explosives on it - TNT, RDX and PETN, according to the Guardian: 'The socks, the prosecution alleges, had been used to clean a mortar tube or as a bung for the muzzle of the weapon.'

Another item was a notebook with 20 pages of detailed instructions on how to fire a mortar.

The final 'article' was a code, found inside a video cassette case:

'Giving examples of the code using mobile phone models, [prosecutor] Mr Ellison said money was Nokia 3310, "trouble-police" was 3410, and weapon was 3610. A series of countries were used to disguise places in the UK such as Yugoslavia for Derby, said Mr Ellison, who suggested it was a means of communicating in terms of apparently legitimate business terms about activities involving violence.' (Telegraph, again)

'Other words and phrases on the code list included “Army bases”, “acetone”, “explosives, factory made” and “target”.' (Times, page 3)

The code was also the basis for the fourth charge, recording information 'of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

How's this for neutral journalism? The Times reports:

'A further search at the Birmingham home of Shabia Tafla, Mr Rowe’s estranged wife, uncovered a codebook for transmitting sensitive messages to possible terrorist associates.'

Or to 'possible criminal associates', or to 'possible friends with an interest in spycraft', or to 'possibly no one at all'.

MILITANT MATERIALS

There was evidence of interest in millitary activity. The police found, alongside the codebook and the notebook with the mortar instructions, 'material on night-vision equipment, radio transmission codes for international regions, books on electronics, martial arts, histories of guerrilla war and mountaineering magazines.'

On the other hand, you might find such material in many men's bedrooms without concluding they are gearing up for a terrorist attack. It seems at least possible that there are British men of other religions (or none) who compile twenty-page instructions on how to fire various weapons, without intending to build, acquire or fire them.

However, there was evidence that Mr Abdullah was interested in al-Qaeda-type terrorism. At his home in Birmingham (apparently he also had the use of a bedroom in his estranged wife's house in London), the police found 'videotapes promoting jihad against America. They included "wills" from two of the September 11 attackers justifying their actions and calling on young Muslims to carry out similar assaults.' (Guardian)

'In his bags [when he was arrested], the defendant had also been carrying audio cassettes with militant sermons about the obligation to fight jihad, calling on Allah to protect the Mujahidin from “unjust Christians and aggressive Jews” and demanding that Mecca be liberated “from the sons of the monkeys and the pigs”.

Many people might possess such articles, and even support al Qaeda attacks in principle, without necessarily preparing to take violent action themselves.

MILITANT ACTION

It should be said, though, that Mr Abdullah seems to have had a history of involvement. According to the prosecution,

'There is evidence that in autumn 1995 the defendant was injured in a mortar attack in Bosnia causing shrapnel injuries to his legs which required hospital treatment in Zenica, north of Sarajevo, for about three weeks as an in-patient. The area where he was injured for a time was a war zone. He was treated under the name Handala.' (Times)

The prosecutor said:

'There is evidence that in autumn 1995 the defendant was injured in a mortar attack in Bosnia causing shrapnel injuries to his legs which required hospital treatment in Zenica, north of Sarajevo, for about three weeks as an in-patient. The area where he was injured for a time was a war zone. He was treated under the name Handala.'

This happened ten years ago, after which Mr Abdullah returned to the UK, married and had children. The prosecution doesn't seem to be advancing evidence (so far) that Mr Abdullah has engaged in any further military action, either at home in the UK or abroad.

CONCLUSION

So the prosecution case is that the rather banal or puzzling items taken in evidence should be seen against this background, and the worst possible inference drawn.

Mr Abdullah should be sent to jail, says the Crown, because he has engaged in a pattern of activity that is suspicious, possesses materials expressing support of al-Qaeda terrorism, and ten years ago fought in Bosnia.

He has not been charged with preparing to kill people. He's been charged with preparing to prepare.

Should it be possible to charge someone with preparing to prepare to kill another person?

Has a decision to kill been made? Can it be shown to have been made? If it hasn't, what exactly is the harm that has been done?

If found guilty of all four charges, Mr Abdullah could theoretically face a sentence of up to forty years in prison (if the sentences ran consecutively, rather than concurrently, which is more normal).

Mr Abdullah says he is not guilty of all four charges. So far the prosecution seems to fall far short of proving that he was preparing to carry out a terrorist action in Britain.

JNV welcomes feedback.