Five young Muslim men today had their terrorism convictions quashed after judges concluded that reading Islamist material was not illegal unless there was "direct" proof it was to be used to inspire violent extremism.

The men had been jailed in July 2006 with the trial judge saying they had been "intoxicated" by extremism after Islamist ideological CDs and computer downloads were found in their possession. The prosecution at their trial claimed the men were preparing to train in Pakistan before fighting in Afghanistan.

They were prosecuted under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to have books or items useful for a terrorist.

Striking down the convictions, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips said: "[Section 57] must be interpreted in a way that requires a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism."

Directions given to the jury by the trial judge were deficient and did not tell them "that they had to be satisfied that each appellant intended to use the relevant articles to incite his fellow planners to fight in Afghanistan".

The court of appeal ruled that the "basis upon which the appellants were convicted is shown to have been unsound" and that the prosecution had not proved its case. Defence lawyers said later that the effect of the court ruling was that it was permissible to download such material so long as there was no intention to use it.

The CPS had tried to use Section 57 against other young people for downloading similar information, but would now be severely restricted unless it could prove unlawful intent, the lawyers said. It is the first time the court of appeal has quashed guilty verdicts passed by a jury since the "war on terror" began in 2001.

The court of appeal said the prosecution's case was so weak, it should not even have gone before a jury. Part of the prosecution's case involved emails and instant messaging taken from the defendants' computers that talked about fighting abroad.

The judgment says: "While they lent support to the prosecution case that the appellants had formed a plan to go to Pakistan to train and then to Afghanistan to fight, there was nothing that evidenced expressly the use, or intention to use, the extremist literature to incite each other to do this. We think it doubtful whether there was a case of infringement of Section 57 … that could properly have been left to a jury."

Full article here.