ABJ v REX
The offence under s.12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000 does not require proof of knowledge of proscription; the statutory ingredients themselves strike the proportionality balance for Article 10 ECHR, and no proportionality direction is required for the jury. The offence is compatible with Articles 7 and 10 ECHR.
- Parties
- Applicant: ABJ; Respondent: REX; Applicant: BDN
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 06 October 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Rulings
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Terrorism Offences, Freedom of Expression, Proscription Regime, Mens Rea, Proportionality, Article 10 ECHR, Article 7 ECHR
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ABJ
Applicant
REX
Respondent
BDN
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Rulings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000 requires proof of knowledge of proscription
- 2 Whether s.12(1A) is compatible with Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression)
- 3 Whether a proportionality direction is required for the jury
Ratio Decidendi
The offence under s.12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000 does not require proof of knowledge of proscription; the statutory ingredients themselves strike the proportionality balance for Article 10 ECHR, and no proportionality direction is required for the jury. The offence is compatible with Articles 7 and 10 ECHR.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Section 37(1) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 disapplied for this judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment