Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
"PaulK" writes:
| "Neil Jones" wrote in message
| ...
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| Not to say monkshood and even potatoes :-)
|
| I am pretty certain that the current Terrorism Act makes it a
| crime to grow any of the above, but the Websites are knotted
| enough that I cannot check on whether the wording is as bad as
| I think it is.
|
| Oh without a doubt. The example I usually make about the Terrorism Act
| is it makes owning a London A-Z illegal. For those who doubt me read the
| act!
|
| I just have done on line and cannot identify the section to which you
| refer - could you supply a page/section reference?
|
| The site I used was: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1

Section 58. I was referring to section 57.

Exactly just to clarify and answer the question that was put to me
here is the piece of law.

57. - (1) A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in
circumstances which
give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is
for a purpose connected with the
commission, preparation or instigation of an act of
terrorism.


(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under
this section to prove that
his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected
with the commission,
preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

Now read what Nick wrote below.


Note that "a reasonable suspicion" in English law is a VERY much
weaker criterion than even the balance of probabilities used in
civil law, and is essentially the criterion used for when you
cannot sue the police for false arrest. For example, posting a
query or doing a Web search on how to extract ricin and then
refusing to submit to interrogation, could be regarded as being
"circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion".

Section 58 is even worse, in that all the prosecution has to prove
is that the information is "likely to be useful" - e.g. an A-Z.
You then have to prove a reasonable excuse for the action or
possession, which has the "gotcha" that it might not include the
planning of lesser crimes or even civil offences - e.g. arranging
demonstrations. And you would have to PROVE even that.

Exactly

58. - (1) A person commits an offence if-


(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be
useful to a
person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or


(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that
kind.


(2) In this section "record" includes a photographic or electronic
record.


(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
section to prove that
he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

In other words under this act you have to PROVE that your possession of
anything which some
one can say has a terrorist use is not for terrorist use. The problem is
what is reasonable is
a value judgement. This sort of wording would be a gift to an
undemocratic regime. It is bad law.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

--
Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve