Dunleavy, R. v (Rev 2)

Dunleavy, R. v (Rev 2)

The expert evidence was properly excluded as it was too general and not sufficiently linked to the applicant’s specific circumstances. The reasonable excuse defence was not available on the applicant’s evidence, as his purposes included supplying material to those with terrorist ideation, which could never be reasonable. The jury was properly directed on unanimity, as the law does not require unanimity on the specific mechanism of intent under section 5 Terrorism Act 2006. The failure to hold a voir dire was not an error, as the obligation was on the applicant to provide a sufficiently detailed report.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Dunleavy; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal refused; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Preparation of Terrorist Acts, Possession of Documents Useful to Terrorism, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Reasonable Excuse Defence, Jury Unanimity Directions
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Preparation of Terrorist Acts Possession of Documents Useful to Terrorism Admissibility of Expert Evidence Reasonable Excuse Defence Jury Unanimity Directions

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Dunleavy

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of Dr Lambert-Simpson’s expert evidence was proper
  2. 2 Whether the defence of reasonable excuse under section 58(3) Terrorism Act 2000 should have been left to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on unanimity regarding the applicant’s intent under section 5 Terrorism Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The expert evidence was properly excluded as it was too general and not sufficiently linked to the applicant’s specific circumstances. The reasonable excuse defence was not available on the applicant’s evidence, as his purposes included supplying material to those with terrorist ideation, which could never be reasonable. The jury was properly directed on unanimity, as the law does not require unanimity on the specific mechanism of intent under section 5 Terrorism Act 2006. The failure to hold a voir dire was not an error, as the obligation was on the applicant to provide a sufficiently detailed report.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal refused; convictions upheld