---

Terrorism Bill

The noble Baroness is right to think that she would get a dusty answer to her request not to bring back these amendments at a later stage. The noble Baroness mentioned that some of these matters were within the particular knowledge of the defendant. Indeed, they are; but if one looks at the 2000 Act a number of matters arise. Section 54 regarding the offence of providing or receiving weapons training, states that the defence is for the defendant to show that his action was wholly for purposes other than terrorism. That is a matter that is plainly within the particular knowledge of the defendant, who must know what his purpose was. Regarding Section 57, which relates to the offence of possession of a terrorist article, the defence must prove that possession was not for a purpose connected with terrorism. Again, it must be a matter for the defendant, who has that within his particular knowledge, to say what his purpose was. The advantage to the prosecution is that the defendant cannot rely on the right of silence and must come up with a plausible explanation of what he was doing. But that does not prevent the burden of proof then passing back to the prosecution. Let us examine the issues in the Bill. Clause 2(8) states that it is a defence for the defendant to show that he had no ““reasonable grounds”” for suspecting that what he was disseminating was a terrorist publication. The question of what are reasonable grounds is not wholly within the knowledge of the defendant. Surely, it is a question for the prosecution to establish what a reasonable ground is. Clause 2(9) refers to a defendant’s expression of views or endorsement. The views of the defendant may be a matter within the knowledge of the defendant, but it seems to me that unless ““endorsed”” is simply a synonym for what his views are, it should plainly be the responsibility of the prosecution to show whether he has endorsed anything, particularly given that nothing in the Bill tells you what ““endorsement”” means. In Clause 3(5), the defendant must show that he has,"““taken every step he reasonably could to prevent a repeat statement from becoming available to the public””." Again, if the defendant says what steps he took, surely it is for the prosecution to prove that those steps were insufficient. Therefore these three subsections all deal with matters where it is plain that the burden should switch back to the prosecution in proving that an offence has been committed. I shall not repeat myself, but I regard this as a very important issue and one which is absolutely essential in the absence of a test involving intention in Clause 2, which I would prefer to see. Therefore, it is more than likely that we will seek to bring back this matter on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 5 [Preparation of terrorist acts]: