Rowe v R

Rowe v R

Documents and records can constitute 'articles' for the purposes of section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The previous decision in R v M,Z,I,R & B was reached per incuriam and is not binding. The trial judge's directions on dual purpose were adequate. Consecutive sentences were permissible but the total sentence must reflect the overall seriousness; the sentence for the second count was reduced to ensure proportionality.

Parties
Appellant: Rowe; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Possession of Articles for Terrorist Purposes, Interpretation of Terrorism Act 2000 Sections 57 and 58, Sentencing Principles, Precedent and Per Incuriam Doctrine
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Possession of Articles for Terrorist Purposes Interpretation of Terrorism Act 2000 Sections 57 and 58 Sentencing Principles Precedent and Per Incuriam Doctrine

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowe

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents and records can constitute 'articles' under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's directions on dual purpose (defensive and terrorist) were adequate
  3. 3 Whether consecutive sentences were justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Documents and records can constitute 'articles' for the purposes of section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The previous decision in R v M,Z,I,R & B was reached per incuriam and is not binding. The trial judge's directions on dual purpose were adequate. Consecutive sentences were permissible but the total sentence must reflect the overall seriousness; the sentence for the second count was reduced to ensure proportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld on both counts under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000
  • Sentence on first count (substitution code): 7.5 years imprisonment