M, R. v

M, R. v

Parliament intended a distinct regime for documents and records under section 58; section 57 cannot be used to sidestep section 58 by describing documents or records as articles; section 58 is not redundant.

Parties
Appellant: M; Appellant: Z; Appellant: I; Appellant: R; Appellant: B; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Hearing Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Terrorism Offences, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Terrorism Offences Statutory Interpretation Burden of Proof

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

Z

Appellant

I

Appellant

R

Appellant

B

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Hearing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether data electronically stored on compact discs or computer hard drives is capable of being an 'article' for the purposes of section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether section 57 renders section 58 redundant
  3. 3 Statutory interpretation of 'article' and 'document/record'

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament intended a distinct regime for documents and records under section 58; section 57 cannot be used to sidestep section 58 by describing documents or records as articles; section 58 is not redundant.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recorder's ruling reversed
  • Section 57 counts cannot be used for possession of documents or records as articles