Da Costa, R. v

Da Costa, R. v

Convictions under sections 6 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006 are safe as jury directions were correct and tailored to the evidence; section 8 does not import section 6(1)(b) intent requirements; the breadth of section 6(3)(b) is not unacceptably uncertain; sentences for soliciting to murder are consistent with current law and precedent.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant/defendant: Kibley Da Costa; Applicant/defendant: Muhammed Al-Figari; Applicant/defendant: Kader Ahmed; Applicant/defendant: Mohammed Hamid; Applicant/defendant: Atilla Ahmet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Legal Topics
Terrorism Offences, Soliciting to Murder, Training for Terrorism, Statutory Interpretation, Sentencing
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Terrorism Offences Soliciting to Murder Training for Terrorism Statutory Interpretation Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Kibley Da Costa

Applicant/defendant

Muhammed Al-Figari

Applicant/defendant

Kader Ahmed

Applicant/defendant

Mohammed Hamid

Applicant/defendant

Atilla Ahmet

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of sections 6 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006
  2. 2 Requirements for conviction under section 6 (providing terrorist training)
  3. 3 Requirements for conviction under section 8 (attending terrorist training)

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions under sections 6 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2006 are safe as jury directions were correct and tailored to the evidence; section 8 does not import section 6(1)(b) intent requirements; the breadth of section 6(3)(b) is not unacceptably uncertain; sentences for soliciting to murder are consistent with current law and precedent.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused.