Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Aine Davis v R

[2023] EWCA Crim 1018
Aine Davis was convicted of terrorism in Turkey and now faces new charges in the UK. He argued the new charges were unfair because he'd already been punished (double jeopardy). The UK court said the charges were different enough and allowed the case to proceed.

Key Facts

  • Aine Davis, born in 1984, allegedly traveled to Syria in 2013 to participate in violent conflict.
  • Electronic devices linked to Davis contained material supporting martyrdom and violent Islamic jihad.
  • Davis is accused of instigating an attempt to smuggle €20,000 into Turkey for terrorism.
  • Nawal Msaad was arrested in January 2014 at Heathrow with the money; Amal El-Wahabi (Davis's wife) was convicted, Msaad acquitted.
  • A Sunday Telegraph article linked Davis to a terrorist network in Syria and Iraq.
  • Davis was arrested in Istanbul in 2015, convicted in Turkey in 2017 for membership of an armed terrorist organization, and deported to the UK in 2022.
  • Davis faces three counts in the UK: possession of a firearm for terrorism, funding terrorism, and entering into a terrorist funding arrangement.
  • Davis argued abuse of process due to double jeopardy and lack of special circumstances, and that Count 3 was bad in law.

Legal Principles

Double jeopardy principle

Common law

Abuse of process

Common law

Special circumstances exception to abuse of process

Common law

Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal to hear appeals from preparatory hearings

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996), sections 29, 31, 35

Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000), sections 15, 17, 57

Statute

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed

The Court found the UK and Turkish prosecutions were not based on the same or substantially the same facts, and no special circumstances justified a second prosecution. Count 3 was not bad in law.

Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeal on abuse of process ruling from a preparatory hearing.

A ruling on an abuse of process application determines a question of law relating to the case, as it goes to the root of the prosecution.

Count 3 not quashed.

The wording of section 17 TA 2000 does not preclude the accused being part of a chain of recipients of funds used for terrorism. The Crown did not impermissibly change its case.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.