R (XX) v XX and XX (AB and CD) (Appellants) [2018] UKSC 36 On appeal from [2017] EWCA Crim 129

• 2018
• United Kingdom

Topics

Legal bases

Courts

Laws

Relevant links

• https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0080-judgment.pdf
• https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0080-press-summary.pdf
• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/11/supreme-court-rules-against-couple-charged-with-funding-terrorism

Facts

This is a pre-trial appeal in a criminal case. The appellants are charged with the offence of entering into funding arrangements connected with terrorism, contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The charges allege that the appellants sent money overseas, or arranged to do so, when they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that it would, or might, be used for the purposes of terrorism. The question which arises in this appeal concerns the correct meaning of the expression “has reasonable grounds to suspect” in section 17(b) of the Act. The appellants argued that it means that the accused must actually suspect, and for reasonable cause, that the money may be used for the purposes of terrorism. The Crown, in response, argued that the section’s wording means it is sufficient that on the information known to the accused there exists, assessed objectively, reasonable cause to suspect that the money will be put to that use. The Court of Appeal accepted the Crown’s contention.

Legal grounds

Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Findings

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. According to the sole judgment of Lord Hughes, the words of section 17(b) of the Act suggest an objective test for mens rea at first sight. The requirement is satisfied when, on the information available to the accused, a reasonable person would suspect that thet money might be used for terrorism.