Key Facts
- •Kashif Riaz and Luqmaan Ahmed, both 16, were convicted of encouraging terrorism and disseminating terrorist publications.
- •Convictions stemmed from Instagram posts and WhatsApp messages sharing YouTube links to videos glorifying terrorist activities.
- •Both applicants admitted to posting and sharing the material but argued their intent was to raise awareness of atrocities in Syria, not encourage terrorism.
- •The trial judge rejected the applicants' 'no case to answer' submission, arguing sufficient evidence existed for the jury to consider.
- •The applicants appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, disproportionate interference with their human rights (Articles 9 and 10 ECHR), and unfair trial (Article 6 ECHR).
Legal Principles
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1039
Proportionality of prosecution with human rights (Articles 9 and 10 ECHR).
European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 9 and 10
Fair trial rights (Article 6 ECHR).
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6
Directing the jury on mindset evidence.
R v Chowdry [2018] 1 WLR 618
Consistency of jury verdicts.
None explicitly cited, but discussed in context of the case.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 3 (compatibility of legislation with Convention rights).
Human Rights Act 1998, section 3
Human Rights Act 1998, section 6 (duties of public authorities).
Human Rights Act 1998, section 6
Terrorism Act 2006, sections 1 and 2.
Terrorism Act 2006
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The court found the judge's rulings on sufficiency of evidence and proportionality were sound and that the directions to the jury adequately protected the applicants' human rights. No errors were found in the trial process or the judge's summation.