R v Gul
[2013] UKSC 64
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is wide enough to cover military attacks by non-state armed groups against armed forces in a non-international armed conflict. The breadth of the definition is a matter for Parliament, not the courts, to address.
Facts
Mohammed Gul was convicted of disseminating terrorist publications (s.2 Terrorism Act 2006) by uploading videos to the internet glorifying attacks by al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other groups on military targets in Chechnya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He argued that the definition of terrorism in s.1 of the 2000 Act did not cover attacks by insurgent groups on military targets during armed conflict.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the definition of terrorism in s.1 was indeed broad enough to cover attacks on military targets by non-state groups in armed conflicts abroad. The Court acknowledged the breadth of the definition was 'concerning' but held that it was for Parliament to narrow the definition if it wished. Safeguards against prosecutorial overreach included the requirement for DPP consent.
Key Quotes
"As a matter of ordinary language, the definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK government."
— Lord Neuberger and Lord Judge at [28](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Confirmed the wide scope of the terrorism definition. Has been the subject of academic criticism for its breadth.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help