UK Counter-Terrorism (merged thread)

[davidbfpo]

Not yet reported by the BBC, but it is confirmed as accurate. This is from a website run by supporters of Faraz:

In a damning judgement, the UK Court of Appeal rules that no causal link could be presented that publications produced by the Maktabah bookshop would inspire acts of political violence or terrorism. They said that it was incorrect of the trial judge to permit evidence that those who had carried out acts of terrorism had owned copies of the books or DVDs and that it was a short cut to a conviction.

The judges further explained that when the extent of acts of political violence are considered, the percentage of those who might have read Maktabah publications was very small and so such a causal link was entirely onerous.

Link:http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-wor...of-ahmed-faraz

The ripples from long-running investigation will spread widely, although being the pre-Christmas rush may easily slip from public view.

[carl]

This is one of those cases that highlight the differences between the UK and the US. I'm not so sure the gov would even bring a case like that here, one that seems to me to criminalize unapproved thought. We'll get there eventually though.

[davidbfpo]

Thanks to an observer the recent Appeal Court decision is not as reported, by a very partial source. First a reminder:

...Faraz had been convicted of seven counts of dissemination of terrorist publications and four counts of possession of information likely to be of use to a person committing or preparing for an act of terrorism. Seven other similar charges would lie on file.

From the BBC report upon conviction:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16149299

The observer:

...only the charges of disseminating terrorism literature were quashed. The possession conviction still stands and regardless of the below, he is still a convicted terrorist.

The previously cited source didn't mention this.

I await the post-Xmas reporting of this matter, if there is any. Perhaps even a statement by the police (WMCTU) or prosecution (CPS).

[davidbfpo]

After an unexplained delay the UK press yesterday reported the Court of Appeal decision; the two reports are similar:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-quashed.html

The former refers to:

The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed yesterday that it would not seek a retrial, according to a report in the Times (behind a Paywall).

One of the expert witnesses, Matthew Tariq Wilkinson, did contribute an article after the initial conviction 'I was a witness in Ahmed Faraz's trial – this is the first time anyone involved has spoken about what really happened':http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...on?INTCMP=SRCH

The defendant was interviewed by Caged Prisoners after his initial conviction, before being sentenced:http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-wor...blishing-books

How the Court of Appeal's decision has been seen amongst the Muslim communities is unclear, some I expect will suspect it confirms that the British state "pulled out all the stops" to convict the bookseller and now the conviction has been partly overturned.

[davidbfpo]

A reasoned commentary from the BBC, which opens with:

Can someone be convicted of disseminating books which are arguably so extreme in nature they've played a role in encouraging terrorism and political violence?

That was the question in the trial - and subsequent appeal - of a Birmingham bookseller who in 2011 was convicted of selling jihadist literature, the first substantial case of its kind.

Nicely sums up the case:

In short, the prosecution said Faraz was distributing material that was designed to prime people for terrorism, even if he was not involved in it himself.

Ahmed Faraz's defence was that none of the publications encouraged terrorism; they were simply publications that encouraged intelligent discussions on religious and political theory - and that he also had a legitimate academic interest in some of the material.

The Court of Appeal decision is linked, although it is far from clear to a layman, but the BBC helps:

the Court of Appeal said that it was probable that some people who had read the books were already militant Islamists who might have been further encouraged. But they said that was not proof that any of the books had indeed encouraged acts of terrorism.

Lord Justice Pitchford said: "The danger is that the jury would condemn the publication purely by reason of its association with known terrorists. The temptation to move to the conclusion that terrorists would not be in possession of a publication unless it encouraged them to acts to terrorism is a powerful one; but such a conclusion would, of course, be speculative, unfair and prejudicial."

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20940716