---

Terrorism Bill

I want to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his analysis. Often, the simplest thing is to ask how you would instruct a jury. Surely, all you have to put to them is, ““You have heard what was said. You have heard the circumstances. The question for you to determine is what the defendant said. Did it encourage someone to commit a terrorist offence?””. That is the end of the story. If the trial judge has to start to pull apart subsection (4) to direct the jury, he will run into all sorts of trouble. Members of the public, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, pointed out, can be members of the public of any country anywhere in the world. Perhaps what was said would not encourage anyone in this country, but if it encourages someone in Australia, presumably that is enough. The subsection uses the phrase,"““conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances””." Every word that the subsection contains limits the broad question, did what he said encourage? Looking at the provision, I wondered what the word ““glorify”” meant. I took myself off to the Oxford English Dictionary and decided that it was the third meaning:"““to extol, honour, magnify with praise””." The dictionary gives a 1631 quotation from John Donne’s poem:"““No chymique [alchemist] yet th’ Elixar got, But glorifies his pregnant pot””." I do not know what that means either, but that is the dictionary illustration for this meaning. It is nonsense. We ask the Minister to explain why on earth this term remains in the Bill.