Gul, R v

Gul, R v

There is no rule of international law requiring the UK courts to read down the definition of terrorism in s.1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to exclude attacks by insurgents on military forces in non-international armed conflict; the statutory definition is clear and applies. Jury irregularity did not affect the fairness or safety of the conviction.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mohammed Gul
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Terrorism, Combatant Immunity, Jury Directions, International Humanitarian Law, Customary International Law, Terrorism and Armed Conflict
Criminal Law Terrorism Law International Law Definition of Terrorism Combatant Immunity Jury Directions International Humanitarian Law Customary International Law +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mohammed Gul

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attacks by insurgents on military forces in non-international armed conflict constitute terrorism under s.1 Terrorism Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether international law requires reading down the definition of terrorism in the UK statute
  3. 3 Whether jury irregularity rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

There is no rule of international law requiring the UK courts to read down the definition of terrorism in s.1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to exclude attacks by insurgents on military forces in non-international armed conflict; the statutory definition is clear and applies. Jury irregularity did not affect the fairness or safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal on the main ground granted but appeal dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal on jury irregularity ground refused.