Material relevant to demonstrating the mindset of those convicted of encouraging support for a proscribed organisation was admissible at trial in order to allow the jury to consider the appellants’ actual views and their willingness to express violent Jihadi views to others. Since none of the material was the subject of any allegation against an appellant, its relevance had been properly explained in jury directions and the defence’s case had been properly set out, there was no possibility of improper or prejudicial use being made of the evidence.
While a judge’s summing-up could have been more clearly expressed, it was not confusing, did not advocate the prosecution case and it did not render the trial unfair. Trial judges were reminded of the guidance and draft directions contained in the Crown Court Compendium. Those directions provided judges with an invaluable resource which, when adapted to the facts of a case, provided an appropriate framework for a legally correct direction.
A judge’ directions to the jury as to the meaning of “acts of terrorism” and other terms within the Terrorism Act 2006 s.2 had adequately protected a young offender’s ECHR art.10 rights.
A conviction for robbery was safe where defence counsel had made a tactical decision, with the offender’s agreement, not to apply to discharge the jury after the victims named a person relied on by the offender in his alibi as an additional suspect.
A minimum term of 30 years imposed in connection with a life sentence for murder was justified where the offender had been convicted on the basis of a joint enterprise. A case would normally fall within the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch.21 para.5 if it was a murder involving the use of a firearm, and the wording of that provision was not confined to the person who had pulled the trigger.