R v Sally Lane and John Letts (AB and CD) (Appellants)

The appellants, Sally Lane and John Letts, appeal against a ruling made by the Crown Court judge at a preparatory hearing for their criminal trial. They are charged with entering into funding arrangements connected with terrorism, contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The primary legal issue in this appeal concerns the correct interpretation of the expression "has reasonable cause to suspect" in section 17(b) of the Act. The appellants argue that the phrase requires an actual suspicion, while the Crown Court judge and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concluded that it is sufficient that there exists, assessed objectively, reasonable cause to suspect that the money may be used for the purposes of terrorism. The appellants contend that the well-established presumption that an offence-creating provision ought to require an element of a guilty mind ("mens rea") should be applied here to require an actual suspicion.

The Supreme Court examined the language of the statute, the statutory context, and the legislative history to determine the correct interpretation of the phrase "has reasonable cause to suspect." The Court found that the plain meaning of the words, as well as the statutory context and legislative history, support the conclusion that the phrase refers to objectively assessed reasonable cause to suspect, rather than requiring an actual suspicion. The Court held that the Crown Court judge and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) were correct in their interpretation of the phrase, and dismissed the appeal. Reporting restrictions apply to this case, and only limited information about the case may be reported until the conclusion of the trial.