Did we say you can read that?

John Ozimek
The Register
Friday, Aug 15, 2008

An issue that refuses to go away is whether some academic research now needs a license from the local police. Regular readers may remember the case of Hicham Yezza and Rizwaan Sabir, which we reported on in May.

This kicked off when Mr Sabir, a postgraduate student at Nottingham University, asked Mr Yezza to help him out by downloading a document described as an “Al Qaeda Training Manual”.

Bad move. The matter was reported to the University authorities, who informed the police. They arrested the two and held them for the best part of a week. At the end of that time Rizwaan Sabir was released but Hicham Yezza was transferred to the custody of the immigration authorities for deportation. Inquiries had turned up some irregularities in his status.

(Article continues below)

Outwardly, this is unfortunate but explicable. The University authorities decided that they were not a competent body to investigate, so involved the police, and the police did their job. Events hinge on section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to possess material that might be useful to someone planning to carry out terrorist offences. But never fear, “it is a defence for a person charged … to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession”.

In the course of the year, various courts have applied their minds to what might constitute a “reasonable excuse”, with much debate about whether “reasonable” means any reason that is, well, reasonable – or simply any reason that is not a terrorist reason. Read the judgment in R v. G to work out whether a paranoid schizophrenic delusion may nonetheless be considered “reasonable” for the purposes of this law.

A small storm in a teacup was kicked off by the Times, when their reporting of one judgment led to a sound rap across the knuckles from the DPP.

What then of our students? Initial events may have pursued their own inevitable logic.

It is what follows – and the entire thrust of the law – that is questionable. First, the law: If you possess dodgy material, it is for you to explain why. Parliament could have legislated the other way around – it could have made it a crime to possess such material “with intent”. But it didn’t, so now you must prove yourself innocent.

Full article here

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

4 Responses to “Did we say you can read that?”

1. Steve Williams Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

   Everyone in Britain should take to wearing Guy Fawkes masks like in the movie V For Vengeance.

2. Commander Clash Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

   I think you mean V For Vendetta. Unfortunatly with the way the world is pulling a stunt like that probably would get a much worse recpetion than the movie. I can honestly see the army mowing down innocent, non-violent protesters the way the world is going.
   Stand Up! Speak Out! Never Be Silenced!
   Commander Clash

3. franklin Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

   I am so use to these stories where we are prompted to get angry with the status quo. As soon as we get finished reading this Prison Planet fix we will all go back to our great drug … the television. Alex Jones has said thousands of times that T.V. is mind control when watched at the levels of the average American. Don’t worry this site will not bother you with your T.V. habits but will give you none stop stories on the NWO and all the deep dark nefarious vilians who are stealing our universal rights in this land of the slave and the not-so-free. Keep up the great reading your doing troops! Now get back to your televisions as soon as your done listening to Alex for the second time today. I gave up all T.V. four months ago because of what Alex has said…so don’t get mad. I’m trying to make you really wake up and not just be a Prison Planet Junkie thats hooked on the Metheddon of political speak which is listening to this site and then going into la la land on your daiy dose of Television. Don’t get mad at me …blame Alex.

4. Steve Williams Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

   That was it, V For Vendetta… Thanks. V definitely had his vendetta for vengeance.

   Weird as anything that England is becoming exactly like what was portrayed in the movie. The movie was extrapolating what was going on a few years ago, and it extrapolated extremely well. England is definitely swirling down the toilet. Hopefully Scotland and Wales don’t go swirling down with it.

   “Remember, remember, the fifth of November…”