Simon Gurney KC: Clarifying the ambit of reasonable excuse for possessing terrorist material
Simon Gurney KC was instructed by the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division to prosecute Jonathan Wilson, whose house was searched by Police in December 2023 and found to contain materials that could potentially be used to create an improvised explosive device, along with a large amount of literature which provided information useful to someone intending to conduct a terrorist attack. This included information on manufacturing explosives, firearms and chemical weapons. During the examination of the scene, Police found numerous weapons and, significantly, schematics for a 3D-printed firearm along with a compatible 3D printer.
Wilson was charged with nine counts of collecting information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000.
Wilson pleaded not guilty. Whilst he admitted possession of the material, he maintained that he had a reasonable excuse for doing so. He relied upon psychiatric evidence and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. He argued that his desire to feel safe was capable of amounting to a reasonable excuse so as to provide his with a defence.
Normally, a defence such as this would be left for a jury to determine, but Simon invited the Court to rule, during a preparatory hearing, on the ambit of the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence under s.58(3) and whether the pleaded defence was viable.
Simon argued that the facts relied upon by the Defendant in his defence statement could not constitute a defence in law: they were incapable of amounting to a defence of reasonable excuse under section 58(3). He relied upon Attorney General’s Reference (No.1 of 2022)[2023] 1 Cr.App.R. 1, in which the then Lord Chief Justice stated a judge may withdraw an issue from the jury “if no reasonable jury properly directed could reach a particular conclusion, e.g. that the defendant might have a ‘reasonable excuse’.”
During legal argument on 31st October 2025, Simon referred the Court to authorities concerning the s.58 offence (R v. G [2009] UKHL 13; R v. Y (A) [2010] EWCA Crim 762 and R v Dunleavy [2021] EWCA Crim 39) and authorities concerning the approach to self-defence (Evans v Hughes (1972) 56 Cr.App.R. 813; R v Fegan (1984) 79 Cr.App.R. 189; and Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1983) [1984] QB 456).
On 14th November 2025, HHJ Field KC handed down his ruling. He recognised that the case presented a novel set of circumstances. He agreed with Simon’s analysis of the law and submissions. He concluded that it was inconceivable that a reasonable jury properly directed could find that the excuse advanced by the defendant that having the publications “made him feel safer” amounted to a reasonable excuse for possessing them.
Mr Wilson pleaded guilty in due course.
His conviction for possessing 3D printed firearm schematics is believed to be one of the first prosecuted under the Terrorism Act.
He was sentenced on 16th September 2026 to 12 months imprisonment, with an extended license period of 12 months. He was made subject to a Serious Crime Prevention Order for five years and notification requirements under the Terrorism Act for ten years upon his release.
For further information about the case, see:
Simon Gurney KC has a wealth of experience in serious criminal litigation, acting both for the prosecution and defence, with a particular focus on cases concerning domestic and international terrorism. If you would like any further information please contact David Wright, Senior Clerk in Chambers on 0161 832 5701 or dwright@lincolnhousechambers.com