판결 이유
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.
사실관계
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.
판결 요약
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.
주요 인용문
"It would be extraordinary if actions which would be terrorist activities if they took place in the United Kingdom ceased to be terrorist activities simply because they took place abroad."
— Lord Neuberger
후속 처리
Confirmed the wide scope of the terrorism definition. Has been the subject of academic criticism for its breadth.