Violent Extremism and Related Criminal Offences
- Types of conduct and offences leading to prosecution
- Free Speech
- Racial and Religious Hatred
- Offences that could be considered
- Recent successful prosecutions
- Code for Crown Prosecutors
1. Types of conduct and offences leading to prosecution
'Violent extremism' may be defined as:
The demonstration of unacceptable behaviour by using any means or medium to express views which:
- foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs;
- seek to provoke others to terrorist acts;
- foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts; or
- foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK
There are a number of offences that can be considered when dealing with violent extremism (See (4) below). They include offences arising through spoken words, creation of tapes and videos of speeches, internet entries, chanting, banners and written notes and publications.
The main offences employed to date have been soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.
2. Free Speech
When deciding whether or not to prosecute such offences, we also have to bear in mind that people have a right to freedom of speech. Free speech includes the right to offend. Indeed the courts have ruled that behaviour that is merely annoying, rude or offensive does not necessarily constitute a criminal offence.
The offences that have been successfully prosecuted go well beyond the voicing of an opinion, free speech or causing offence.
The distinct common thread in terms of criminal prosecutions under the radicalisation umbrella has been a manifested desire to kill, maim or cause a person or group of people immense fear for their personal safety through the threat of (often) extreme violence based on their colour or religion, and urging others to take this course.
Prosecutions are not limited to cases of the above, however, and in addition there have been prosecutions for deeply insulting behaviour. This is behaviour which falls short of a desire to commit violence but is nevertheless threatening, abusive or insulting and intends to stir up racial hatred.
3. Racial and Religious Hatred
Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence. Sometimes it may be obvious that a person intends to cause racial hatred; for example, when a person makes a public speech condemning a group of people because of their race and deliberately encouraging others to turn against them and perhaps commit acts of violence. Usually, however, the evidence is not so clear-cut and we may have to rely upon people's actions in order to prove their intentions.
If we are not able to prove that the accused intended to stir up racial hatred, we have to show that, in all the circumstances, hatred was likely to be stirred up, not simply liable or possible.
The offences of inciting religious hatred and incitement to hatred because of sexual orientation require the accused to intend to incite hatred.
4. Offences that could be considered include
- Treason (Desiring death of the monarch, levying war against the Queen, giving aid and comfort to enemies of the state)
- Soliciting Murder: s.4, Offences against the Person Act 1861 (Encouraging or persuading any person to murder any other person)
- Incitement to commit acts of terrorism overseas: s.59, Terrorism Act 2000.
- Incitement to disaffection: Various Acts
- Inciting racial or religious hatred - Part III Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006)
- Inviting support for a proscribed organisation: s.12, Terrorism Act 2000
- Terrorist financing offences S.15-18, Terrorism Act 2000
- Encouragement of terrorism: s.1, Terrorism Act 2006
- Dissemination of terrorist publications: s.2, Terrorism Act 2006
- Offences of encouragement and dissemination using the internet
- Distributing, showing, playing or possessing a recording, with intent to stir up racial hatred: s.21 - 23, Public Order Act 1986
5. Recent successful prosecutions
A. Abu Hamza
On Tuesday 7th February 2006, Abu Hamza was convicted of six counts of soliciting to murder, two counts of using threatening words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred, one count of possessing threatening recordings and one count of possession of a document likely to be useful to a terrorist.
He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment
Soliciting to murder
These counts related to his speeches. The defendant frequently preached at the Finsbury Park Mosque in London until the Mosque was closed in 2003. Some of these talks or sermons were recorded and sold or distributed on video and audio cassette tape. The defendant also gave talks at other locations, such as in community centres. A search of the defendant's home address revealed that he was in possession of a large number of audio and video recordings.
The content of the defendant's speeches at the public meetings, as recorded on tape, demonstrated violent hostility to certain classes of people. In particular:
- A video recorded speech advocating the killing of those who do not believe in the Islamic faith. The defendant emphasises the importance of 'fighting' and identifies those who are legitimate targets. He states that 'there is no drop of liquid loved by Allah more than the liquid of blood in the cause of Allah' whether this is achieved by a Serb, a Jew or any enemy of Allah. He emphasises the importance of using the 'sword' in the cause of Allah.
- A speech advocating the killing of non-believers. The defendant addresses whether killing is 'haram' or 'halal'. He stated that it was acceptable to kill a non-believer, even for no reason.
- A speech advocating the killing of non-believers in which he stresses that Allah rewards those who make an effort to fight. He illustrates this by saying 'productive, productivity, this one he killed seven, this one he killed one, this one he got killed before he killed, praise be to Allah. They all get rewarded according to their intention'. The defendant states that fighting is obligatory even though it may be disliked. The defendant also expounds some rules of fighting.
- A speech providing 'rules' of killing those who do not believe in the Islamic faith. The defendant states that suicide bombing is a legitimate form of Jihad and is a form of martyrdom.
- A speech advocating the killing of those who hindered 'Allah's rule or 'ascribed to corruption'. He states that this evil would not be removed until such people are killed.
Threatening words likely to stir up racial hatred
- This included a speech advocating the killing of Jewish people in which the defendant states that Allah will send people to torture and humiliate them until judgment day and that is why He sent Hitler for them.
- Speeches describing Jewish people as sons of monkeys and pigs. The defendant advocates the killing of them. It includes references to Jewish people controlling the US and UK Governments. He endorses the jihad of 'the gun and the bomb'.
- Speeches stating that the Jews had insulted Allah and deserved to be killed and describes them as being 'the most tight people on Earth' and 'dirty monkeys'.
- (The possession of a terrorism document charge related to an "Encyclopaedia of Afghani Jihad" which included information about methods of killing, how to manufacture and use explosives and explosive devices and the use of handguns)
B. Abdullah El-Faisal
On 24th February 2003, Abdullah El-Faisal was convicted of two counts of soliciting to murder, two counts of using threatening words and behaviour and one count of distributing threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound.
He was sentenced to a total of nine years' imprisonment (reduced to seven on appeal)
The defendant is a cleric who in his sermons solicited others to murder. These sermons were recorded onto audiotapes and videotapes, which were then distributed to specialist shops and were available for sale to members of the public.
From the vast quantity of tapes seized by the Police, eight of the most graphic and offensive were the subject of the Public Order Act prosecution. Below are some examples from those sermons.
(i) Jihad Dat:
'Before continuing let us define the word Jihad – whenever Allah used the word Jihad in the Koran it means to kill the Kaffirs...That's the legitimate meaning of Jihad'.
(ii) Jihad:
'Is there any peace treaty between us and Hindus and Indian? No, so you can go to India and if you see a Hindu walking down the road you are allowed to kill him and take his money'.
(iii) The Rules of Jihad:
'All of you have to go for Jihad training and to be a soldier. Islamically speaking, the moment you hit 15, on your 15th birthday you are a soldier.....The moment you are 15-years-old you have become a soldier....If you did well in your training you were an excellent shooter and you were excellent in flying a plane or driving a tank and they said alright little brother we need you on the front line in Afghanistan you have to go even though you have a home, a wife and four children.'
(iv) Declaration of War
'It is incumbent upon us Muslims to remind the believers of the importance of killing these disbelievers, finding them and killing them and to remind the believers that they are our greatest enemies.'
(v), (vi) & (vii) No Peace with the Jews, Jewish Traits & Them v Us
These tapes include many attacks on Jewish people.
C. Stephen Dempsey
Mr Dempsey faced 11 counts of publishing threatening material with intent to stir up racial hatred.
Upon conviction he asked for 33 similar offences to be taken into consideration and received a three year prison sentence.
- The offences all related to hand written notes discovered by members of the public. These notes/letters had been glued to bridges near to a school, glued into popular TV listing magazines within a town centre shop, books which had been written in and then placed back onto shop displays, left in phone boxes, next to bus stops and notes left in envelopes attached to gates and fences of private dwellings.
- The majority of the notes discovered were purported to be from 'The Brothers of Islam', some from the 'Brothers of Africa'. The contents of all these letters and notes described very disturbing and inflammatory scenarios. Common themes within these described how "in America white women wore strappy high heeled shoes whilst they watch a black man crying choking to death in a white man's gas chamber." Other notes described how they would "love to slice open the stomach of heavily pregnant white women before stamping on the foetus".
- On the day of the bombings in London and thereafter the intensity of the letters grew and referred to "whites dying"
- In addition to all this the material detailed extreme prejudice towards black people, Chinese and Jewish people.
D. Cartoon Protesters
On February 3rd 2006, there was a demonstration in Central London by members of Al Ghurabaa a group within the Islamic community to protest against the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed armed with a bomb. The protest had no permission and no organisation. The chants and placards were considered by a large section of the public to be offensive and the defendants were later arrested and charged with either soliciting to murder or stirring up racial hatred contrary to s.18(1) of the Public Order Act, (or both).
Four defendants were charged and convicted as set out below.
All four were sentenced on 18 July 2007.
1. Rahman
During the protest this defendant made a speech in which he called for British soldiers to come back in body bags; he called for another 9/11 in Denmark another 9/11 in Spain in France and all over Europe. He chanted "Bomb, Bomb France. Nuke, Nuke France."
0n 9th December 2006 he was convicted of stirring up racial hatred. The jury failed to reach a verdict on solicitation to murder; he was convicted at the retrial. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on the solicitation to murder with three years concurrent on the incitement.
2. Saleem
This defendant was chanting during the demonstration phrases such as: 'Democracy go to hell. Freedom go to hell. UK you must pay. Sharia is on its way. 7/7 on its way. UK you will pay: Bin Laden on his way'
On 1st January 2007, he was found guilty of one count of using threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour and was sentenced in July to four years' imprisonment.
3. Javed
This concerns a speech calling those who insulted Islam the enemies of Allah, who have launched a crusade against Islam and the Muslims....who have declared war against the Muslim Nation for which they will pay a heavy price. ...take lessons from Theo Van Gough and the Jews of Khyber.
He chanted: 'Denmark you will pay, with your blood
There is no God but Allah. Jihad is the way to Allah
Democracy, hypocrisy go to hell.
Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA
Denmark watch your back, Zarqawi coming back'.
There was also a leaflet found in his flat entitled "Kill them by their sword of wherever they are."
On 5th January 2007, he was convicted of one count of soliciting murder and one count of inciting racial hatred and received the same sentences as Rahman.
4. Muhid
Muhid was seen to be carrying posters into the Mosque stating "Europe U will pay 3/11 on its way".
During the demonstration, he was carrying a placard reading 'Annihilate those who insult Islam'
On 7th March 2007, Muhid was convicted of two counts of soliciting to murder and was sentenced in July to six years' imprisonment.
E. Neil Martin
On 4 August 2005, a week after the murder of Anthony Walker, Neil Martin accessed the condolences page of a website set up to commemorate the teenager. Using the pseudonym 'Genuine Scouser' he posted a number of highly offensive, racist messages that were removed some hours later by the website administrator.
They included the phrases:
(a) black cunt nigger coon shit shifting slave boy bastard...';
(b) 'damn black bastards reproduce like rabbits anyway'
(c) 'his family should be put on the banana boat and shipped back to work the fields, and if they complain whip the coons to within an inch of their lives...they are second class people... (they have no) feelings...niggers are here to serve us';
Neil Martin was prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.
After entering guilty pleas Martin was sentenced on 6 October 2006 by the Recorder of Liverpool to two years' eight months' imprisonment in respect of this offence.
He was also sentenced to six months imprisonment for 33 offences of Making Indecent Photographs (contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978), this sentence to be served consecutively.
F. Neil Lewington
On 30 October 2008 Lewington was arrested at Lowestoft train station in Suffolk after causing an altercation on a train. He had travelled from his home in Reading, via London, to Suffolk and carried a holdall throughout his journey. He was drunk at the time of his arrest. When the holdall was searched at Lowestoft Police Station it was found to contain the component parts to two Improvised Incendiary Devices (IIDs). An Explosives Ordnance Officer attended and confirmed both devices were viable and made them safe. Also found in his possession were a number of handwritten notes which included instructions to set up the devices.
A search was conducted of the house Lewington shared with his parents in Reading. Within his bedroom was found what was described as a 'bomb factory' because it contained numerous component parts for IIDs. Also found were a number of handwritten and other documents of a neo-nazi ideology including a handwritten book entitled 'The Waffen SS' and drawings and notes relating to the composition if IEDs and IIDs. The Forensic Explosive Laboratory confirmed the viability of the devices and recipes found.
Lewington's trial took place at the Central Criminal Court and he was convicted of offences of engaging in conduct in preparation for a terrorist act (contrary to s.5 of the Terrorism Act 2006), possessing articles for a terrorist purpose (contrary to s.57 of the Terrorism Act 2000), possessing documents likely to be useful to a terrorist purpose (contrary to s.58 of the Terrorism Act 2000), possessing explosive substances with intent (contrary to s.3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883) and possessing explosives (contrary to s.4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883).
Lewington was sentenced on 8 September 2009 and was imprisoned for public protection for the offence contrary to s.3 of the Explosive Substances Act with a minimum term to serve of six years imprisonment, which if it had been a determinate sentence would have equated to 12 years imprisonment. In relation to the other offences for which he was convicted he was ordered to serve between four and 10 years' imprisonment to run concurrently.
G. Darren Tinklin
On 21 October 2009 police officers searched Tinklin's home address in Blackwood, Gwent, pursuant to a drugs warrant. In his address they found packets of sulphur, potassium nitrate and powdered charcoal. In addition they found a home-made muzzle-loading weapon, a lead ball and a length of copper pipe which had been pinched at each end and a hole drilled in its side (identified as being an improvised pipe-bomb). Inside this last item police recovered a powder that contained potassium nitrate, sulphur and charcoal; the appearance of that "black powder" mix indicated that it had not been professionally made.
The firearm was tested and it was concluded that it had the capacity to discharge a missile with lethal force. The lead ball recovered was capable of fitting into the muzzle of the improvised firearm.
There was no fuse inserted in the pipe-bomb but there were a number of professionally made fireworks in the house, fuses from which could be used for this purpose.
Police also found further quantities of the ingredients necessary to make the black powder which had been recovered from the pipe-bomb at Tinklin's address.
Tinklin was charged with one count of possession of a firearm without a certificate contrary to s.1 of the Firearms Act 1968, two counts of making explosives and three counts of possession of explosives contrary to s.4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
On 14 January 2010 Tinklin pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm without a certificate (the muzzle-loaded weapon), contrary to s.1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and two counts of making explosives, contrary to s.4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (the black powder and the pipe-bomb), and on 23 February 2010 he was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment.
H. Ian and Nicky Davison
In spring 2009 police officers began to investigate an organisation called the Aryan Strike Force ("ASF"). The ASF was a neo-Nazi organisation which espoused violent hatred towards Jews, Muslims, black people, Asians and anyone associated with the British Government. The ASF was dedicated to using violence in its quest for the creation of an international "Aryan" group who would establish white supremacy in white countries. The ASF operated a website and through this medium the organisation spread its message and operated a forum for members in which they could exchange views. The site also offered for download various publications of an ideological or terrorist nature.
Ian and Nicky Davison are father and son and were important figures in the ASF; in particular Ian Davison was one of the co-founders of ASF.
In June 2009 officers went to the addresses of Ian Davison, who lived in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne and Nicky Davison, who lived in County Durham. They found a jar of ricin in Ian Davison's house, the contents of which were enough to have killed nine people. Ian Davison admitted he had made the ricin. Police also found copies of instructional material on the making of bombs and other explosive devices stored on his computer.
In Nicky Davison's address police found on two computers a large quantity of bomb making and explosive making material.
Ian Davison was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, preparing for acts of terrorism contrary to s.5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 and producing a chemical weapon (ricin) contrary to s.2(1)(b) of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. This case was the first prosecution for this latter offence in the UK. Ian Davison also pleaded guilty to charges relating to the instructional material on his computers regarding the making of bombs, contrary to s.58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In May 2010 he received a total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
Nicky Davison pleaded not guilty to two counts of possession of material likely to be of use to a terrorist contrary to s.58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was convicted of both offences and in May 2010 was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
I. Michael Heaton and Trevor Hannington
On 9 December 2009 two further leading members of the Aryan Strike Force (ASF), Michael Heaton and Trevor Hannington, were arrested at their home addresses in Lancashire and Cardiff respectively. Heaton was a committee member and Hannington was an administrator of the ASF website. Both had made a large number of postings on the forum which included calls for the killing of Jews and black people. The postings also demonstrated hatred towards Jews, black people, Muslims and people of Asian heritage.
Heaton's house contained a lot of Nazi paraphernalia. His computers were seized. He had made specific postings on the ASF forum which called for the destruction of Jews, and had made comments demonstrating hatred for ethnic minorities and the British government. Heaton was charged with a number of offences which comprised offences of soliciting murder and using threatening, insulting words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred. He admitted to police that he had made such posts, dismissing his actions as "talking rubbish" on the internet - he claimed that he had moved away from such extreme views.
Hannington's home was searched and his computers were seized. He had made posts calling for the killing of Jews and demonstrating hatred for people who were not white. He had also downloaded publications from the internet and bought a book in hard-copy which provided instructions on how to make bombs and other explosive devices. He had also distributed to ASF members an instructional video on the making an improvised flamethrower which, he said, could be used to burn black people. He was charged with a number of offences which comprised offences of soliciting murder and using threatening, insulting words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred. In addition, he was charged with three offences collecting information likely to be of use to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism and one offence of disseminating a terrorist publication. He admitted to police that he had made all the posts and claimed that he never intended to carry through the things he had posted. He had downloaded the terrorist publications but only out of curiosity.
At trial Heaton pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faced. He was found not guilty of the count of soliciting murder but was found guilty of all the counts relating to the stirring of racial hatred contrary to s.18 of the Public Order Act 1986. He was sentenced to a term of 30 months' imprisonment. Hannington was found not guilty of the count of soliciting murder but had pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial to the counts relating to the stirring of racial hatred, three offences of collecting information likely to be of use to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism contrary to s.58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the one offence of disseminating a terrorist publication contrary to s.2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. He was sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment.
6. Code for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors gives guidance on how we should make decisions about whether or not to prosecute. The Code is a public document. We review the cases referred to us by the police in line with the two tests set out in the Code.
The evidential test
We must be satisfied first of all that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge. This means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge.
For there to be a conviction, we have to prove the case so that the court is sure of the defendant's guilt. If the case does not pass the first test (the evidential test) based on the strength of the evidence, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. We have explained already that not every case that meets the definition of a racist/religious incident will necessarily be prosecuted. There may not be enough evidence for us to be satisfied that a court is likely to convict the defendant.
The public interest test
If the case does pass the evidential test, we must then decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest. A prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. When considering the public interest test, one of the factors we should always take into account is the consequences for the victim of the decision whether or not to prosecute, and any views expressed by the victim or the victim's family.
The Code is a public document. Copies are available from CPS Headquarters, from local CPS Offices, or from our website www.cps.gov.uk
