XX vs. XX (Appellant), UKSC 64
- 2013
- United Kingdom
Topics
Terrorism propagandaLegal bases
United Kingdom: The Terrorism Act 2000 United Kingdom: The Terrorism Act 2006Courts
The Supreme Court (UKSC), United KingdomLaws
Freedom of ExpressionFacts
Mr. XX was born in Libya in February 1998 and migrated to the United Kingdom soon after, identified at the time of his trials as a British citizen. In 2009 the police ordered a search warrant within the applicant's home, where they found multiple videos on his computer which he had uploaded to video streaming websites such as YouTube. The content of these videos showed Al-Qaeda and Taliban attacks on military targets in Chechnya and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; the use of improvised explosive devices against coalition forces; extracts from 'Martyrdom videos' and attacks on citizens including the 9/11 New York attack. These videos were accompanied by commentaries praising the bravery and martyrdom of those carrying out the attacks, and encouraging others to emulate them. In his defence the applicant argued that he did not agree with attacking civilians, but that the other videos uploaded were self-defence by people resisting the invasion of their country. In the appeal against his conviction he argued that the definition of what a terrorist is should be considered when reviewing the case. Mr. XX argued that both domestic and international laws have defined terrorism so narrowly, so as to exclude its application to situations such as those depicted in some of the videos which he had uploaded, namely those involving actions by non-state armed troops attacking foreign armed forces in their territory.
Legal grounds
Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006: 2(3) (obtaining terrorist publications), 2(2)(a) (circulating terrorist publications) & 2(1); Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Findings
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Mr. XX’s appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the videos uploaded met the requirements of Section 2(3)(a) of the 2006 Act; that the videos encouraged and/or induced people to commit, prepare or instigate "acts of terrorism", and that the appellant had intended that consequence.