CyberLaw Blog

Archive for May 1st, 2008

‘Arrogant’ Islamist activists jailed for inciting terror - Times Online: “From The Times

April 19, 2008: ‘Arrogant’ Islamist activists jailed for inciting terror (Sean O’Neill)

An Islamist extremist jailed yesterday for terrorist fundraising and inciting terror abroad will be released by the middle of next year.

Abu Izzadeen, 33, was sentenced to four and a half years in prison at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court by a judge who described him as arrogant and contemptuous.

The extremist speaker will serve only half that term and, having already spent a year in jail on remand, he can expect to be released in 15 months.

Simon Keeler, 35, who was found guilty of the same offences, also received a four-and-a-half-year sentence.
(more…)

HL Third reading version is available through CyberLaw.org.uk

You can see here the latest version of the Possession of extreme pornographic images provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill following the Third Reading debate that took place at the House of Lords on 30.04.2008.
(more…)

Lord Hunt’s proposed participation in consensual acts defence was agreed at the House of Lords on 30.04.2008 during the Third Reading debate for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 14:

14: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—

“Defence: participation in consensual acts

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person (“D”) is charged with an offence under section 62, and

(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.

(2) It is a defence for D to prove—

(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and

(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and

(c) if the image portrays an act within section 62(7)(c), that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.

(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is “non-consensual” harm if—

(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or

(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted.”

(more…)

30.04.2008
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Read a third time.

Clause 62 [Possession of extreme pornographic images]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 13:

13: Clause 62, page 49, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) is obscene as defined by section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c. 66) (test of obscenity).”

[This amendment was defeated after a lengthy discussion and not agreed to]

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are many things in these clauses about extreme pornography with which we on these Benches remain deeply unhappy. On Report, the Minister did not explain why he could not move at least a little nearer the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Linking these clauses to that Act would have made the measure more objective, and less subjective, and would have had the other strength of targeting the producers of such material rather than the end user. It would target those who are making vast amounts of money out it.

(more…)

Charity advice on music downloads: “(BBC)
The charity Childnet is launching a global information campaign to warn children about the potential dangers of downloading music illegally. The campaign, which is supported by the music industry, will distribute a pocket-sized guide to schools and colleges in 21 countries. Childnet says the risks include breach of copyright, the threat of viruses and the loss of privacy and security.”

(Via QuickLinks Update.)