Choudary & Anor, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 395 (18 March 2026)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2026] EWCA Crim 395
Parties: Applicant: Anjem Choudary; Applicant: Khaled Hussein; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 March 2026
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal by Single Judge
Outcome: leave to appeal refused for both applicants
Legal Topics: Terrorism, Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay, Sentencing, Dangerousness, Proscribed Organisations

Criminal Law Terrorism Bad Character Evidence Hearsay Sentencing Dangerousness Proscribed Organisations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9

Parties

Anjem Choudary

Applicant

Khaled Hussein

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal by Single Judge

Legal Issues

1 admissibility of non-defendant bad character evidence
2 definition and proof of 'acts of terrorism' under section 56 Terrorism Act 2000
3 admissibility and jury direction regarding hearsay evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of non-defendant conduct during indictment period was properly admitted and necessary to prove organisation's involvement in terrorism; convictions and misconduct constituted acts of terrorism under statutory definitions; hearsay evidence was reliable and properly directed; life sentence and minimum term for Choudary justified by exceptional gravity, persistence, and dangerousness; Hussein's sentence proportionate given awareness and active support.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused for both applicants

Orders

leave to appeal against conviction refused for Anjem Choudary
leave to appeal against sentence refused for Anjem Choudary

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.