So, it seems...

[mrph]

...you can be charged with possessing an extract of the Terrorist's Handbook, can you? Anyone know which law covers that?

Given how widely circulated it used to be, I suspect most of the people I knew at Uni would now be facing arrest.

Comments

[deborah_c]

Terrorism Act 2000, section 58(1):

"A person commits an offense if-

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."

This effectively criminalises the possession of an A-Z, although 58(3) provides a defense of "reasonable excuse". The full text of the act is on the HMSO website.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Aha. That would be it, yes. That also explains which law the other documents (floorplans of New York businesses) are covered under...

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

I would have thought that being in possession of a bomb-making recipe would be good grounds. Same as having 2 tons of cow poo in your possession...?!

[grega.livejournal.com]

I wonder if this covers scientific papers on ricin's mode of action....hmmmmm. Then again the police know I have access to the stuff and no doubt expect me to have literature on it too.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

It's all about intent. Owning a car with the intent to run someone over is illegal, as is owning a recipie for ricin with the intent to poison people. Owning a car to drive to work, on the other hand, isn't illegal, and neither, I'd imagine, would it be illegal to own the recipie for ricin if one were, say, a biochemistry student.

I'd be interested to hear exactly how the police established the intent in this case, given that intercepts (phone taps, email intercepted in flight etc.) are not admisible as evidence.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I'm always a little wary of the "intent" aspect. It's woolly and subjective. Which makes for bad laws.

If I've got an AK47 stashed in my garage, I know where I stand with regard to the law.

If I've got a recipe for ricin, or a print out of some internet waffling about how to build bombs, I may or may not be a criminal. It depends. I don't much like that ambiguity.

[deliberateblank.livejournal.com]

Well, quite.

This would be an entirely different question in the States, but then they're a bit weird.

(Neither would merit a raised eyebrow, as long as you vote Republican.)

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Ok, how about having recipe for a bomb, a van and 2 tons of cow poo...
"honest officer, I've got a big garden" ;)

[mrph.livejournal.com]

The van + cow poo combination isn't terribly unlikely. I mean, how else are you going to transport two tons of manure? :)

But even in that situation, I don't want to see people being prosecuted for having those things. If there's evidence of a plot, prosecute them under the appropriate "planning to kill people" laws. If there isn't, you shouldn't be prosecuting them for possessing items which aren't, by themselves, illegal.

I've read the anarchists cookbook and the terrorists handbook. In fact, I searched the net to see how available they were just after I saw this story, then skimmed them again - and records of that will be available to the police if they look, I guess. So if I have physical "bomb making materials" available too, should I now be charged?