Mohammed Atif Siddique v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2010] HCJAC 7

Criminal note of appeal against conviction and sentence:- On 17 September 2007, at the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow, the appellant was convicted after trial of four offences related to terrorism and sentenced to:- (a) 6 years' imprisonment in respect of charge (1) from 13 April 2006; (b) 6 months' imprisonment in respect of charge (3); (c) 2 years' imprisonment in respect of charge (4); and (d) one year's imprisonment in respect of charge (5). The period of imprisonment for charge (3) was to run concurrently with the period on charge (1) and the periods imposed on charges (4) and (5) were to run concurrently but consecutively to the period imposed on charge (1). Subsequently, the appellant lodged a Note of Appeal against conviction and sentence on a number of grounds including inter alia that the trial judge misdirected the jury in the course of his charge in relation to the jury assessing the question of whether the appellant's possession of the articles was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism and what evidence they could consider in that assessment. Further, it was submitted that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to what amounted to a reasonable excuse in relation to the statutory defence of reasonable excuse under Section 58(3) of the Terrorism Act 2000. In addition, it was submitted that the trial judge had failed to present a balanced picture of the evidence to the jury during the charge. Here the court considered the various grounds of appeal, in particular, whether the directions given by the trial judge in respect of the relationship between the statutory language used in section 57(1) and the defence created by section 57(2) were sufficiently clear for the jury.