Is there a law in the UK that makes possession of specific publications illegal?
<p>I just read the following in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/02/three-musketeers-convicted-of-plotting-terrorist-attack" rel="nofollow noreferrer">an article</a> in The Guardian (emphasis mine):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In prison they met their co-defendant Rahman, 32, one of nine men prosecuted in connection with a plan to attack the London stock exchange, <strong>who was serving five years for owning copies of an al-Qaida magazine</strong>. On the witness stand, Hussain said Rahman was “domineering, paranoid, weird and had a lot of contact with MI5”.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is there really any law that makes it illegal to own copies of a publication? We punish thoughtcrime, these days? Is this an error in the newspaper or is there actually a law that permits people to be prosecuted (and even jailed for years!) for simply possessing a document?</p>

<p>Please note that I am not asking about cases where the possession of the document was presented as evidence of someone's worldview when they have been caught committing a crime. I am asking if the possession of a document<sup>1</sup> can ever be considered criminal.</p>

<hr>

<p><sup>1</sup><sub>Obviously, I am not talking about stolen documents or even certain classes of pornography whose very existence (photographs) implies an illegal act took place. </sub></p>

<p><strong>"Is there really any law that makes it illegal to own copies of a publication?"</strong></p>

<p>I couldn't find exact confirmation of which law Rahman was prosecuted under, but <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/terrorists-who-tried-to-blow-up-661178" rel="noreferrer">an article from 2012</a> describes it as "possessing an article for a terrorist purpose". <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7084801.stm" rel="noreferrer">A BBC article from 2007</a> uses the same phrase, with regard to "Section 57 of the Terrorism Act", which appears to refer to the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/57" rel="noreferrer">Terrorism Act 2000</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>57 Possession for terrorist purposes.</p>
  
  <p>(1)A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in
  circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his
  possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation
  or instigation of an act of terrorism.</p>
  
  <p>(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
  section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a
  purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of
  an act of terrorism.</p>
  
  <p>(3)In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved
  that an article—</p>
  
  <p>(a)was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or</p>
  
  <p>(b)was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he
  habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public,</p>
  
  <p>the court may assume that the accused possessed the article, unless he
  proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he
  had no control over it.</p>
  
  <p>(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—</p>
  
  <p>(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
  exceeding 15 years,<sup>*</sup> to a fine or to both, or</p>
  
  <p>(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
  months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><sub><sup>*</sup>Interestingly, the maximum term of imprisonment appears to have originally been 10 years, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/13#section-13-1" rel="noreferrer">but was increased in 2006</a>.</sub></p>

<p>That law's not specific to publications, but in an attempt to answer your question more fully there does seem to be at least one law that "makes it illegal to own copies of a publication": the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008&amp;oldid=788945290" rel="noreferrer">Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008</a>, for example, renders possession of 'extreme pornography' illegal, and the definitions do not require (to reference your footnote) that the materials "imply an illegal act took place". Rather, the materials are illegal because (to quote a government consultation, via the Wikipedia page linked above)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>such material may encourage or reinforce interest in violent and aberrant sexual activity to the detriment of society as a whole</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That may or may not bother you from a freedom of speech point of view, but it leads me nicely onto a discussion of the underlying ethics/morality/rights debate that you impled in your question:</p>

<p><strong>"We punish thoughtcrime, these days?"</strong></p>

<p>As far as I understand, Rahman was in physical possession of the magazine. So no &ndash; not "thoughtcrime". Merely thinking about the magazine &ndash; or believing the views expressed in its contents &ndash; would not, of itself, be illegal. Indeed, as the article points out in its description of main case under discussion (<em>i.e.</em> the "Three Musketeers" case, not Rahman's prior conviction),</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the prosecution described as the defendants’ “hateful beliefs” – but the judge, Mr Justice Globe, told them they could not convict based on “mindset evidence” alone.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, like hate speech (speech, not thought), or conspiracy to commit a crime (which is what the men in the Three Musketeers case were being charged with), saying (or writing) certain things is, quite reasonably, illegal, if the intent of those words is incitement to commit a crime.</p>

<p>Restrictions on free speech exist everywhere, and any (political) debate around it generally centres less on an <em>absolute</em> right to free speech, and more on where the line should be drawn. Even in the US &ndash; which tends to draw the line at the permissive end of the spectrum &ndash; speech intended solely to cause damage is not immune from reproach. The classic example is "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater&amp;oldid=776960550" rel="noreferrer">[falsely] shouting fire in a crowded theater</a>":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Similarly, the publication of a magazine, the sole purpose of which is to (inspire or facilitate) damage, can be illegal. It would then seem  reasonable for <em>supplying</em> that magazine to others to be illegal. Possession with a clear intent to supply (like with drugs) would also, reasonably, be illegal. And if drug possession, with no intent to supply, can be illegal, then why not possession of illegal material, even if there's no intent to supply?</p>

<p>I make no attempt here to justify (nor even to outline fully) the <em>exact details</em> of English law when it comes to these matters; however, there's an important distinction between freedom of speech (with regard to which nearly everyone accepts <em>some</em> restriction or regulation) and freedom of thought or conscience. To the best of my knowledge, there's no law (in Britain) that restricts either of those.</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9054463/Terror-gang-who-plotted-to-blow-up-London-Stock-Exchange-could-be-free-in-six-years.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article from the Telegraph</a>, in February 2012, Mohibur Rahman pleaded guilty to "possession of a document containing information useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism."  This appears to be a reference to <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1)A person commits an offence if—</p>
  
  <p>(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be
  useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or</p>
  
  <p>(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that
  kind.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So yes, this law does make it illegal to possess certain publications or documents.</p>

<p><a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090304/rgrj-1.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is a ruling from the House of Lords Appellate Committee (2009 UKHL 13) in an earlier case involving a violation of this section, which contains further information and references on how this section can be applied.   Note that it goes on for several pages; see the "continue" links at the bottom of each page.  </p>

<hr>

<p>Some people have commented below that the literal text of the law would appear to ban the possession of telephone books, street maps, chemistry texts, etc, as such documents would be likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.  The Appellate Committee ruling above addresses that concern specifically in paragraphs 42 and 43, and rejects the literal interpretation, concluding that such documents <em>do not</em> fall within the scope of Section 58.  Note that the Appellate Committee was, as of 2009, effectively the highest court in the UK, and its opinions are binding on all lower courts, so their interpretation has the force of law.  (The UK court system has since been restructured, and what was formerly the Appellate Committee is now called the Supreme Court of the UK.)</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="42">
  <li><p>Obviously, on one reading, section 58(1) could cover a multitude of records of everyday common or garden information, which might
  actually be useful to a person who was preparing to carry out an act
  of terrorism - e g a Yellow Pages directory listing outlets where he
  could buy fertiliser and other chemicals for making into a bomb, a
  timetable from which he could discover the times of trains to take him
  to the city where he was going to plant his bomb, or an A to Z
  directory of that city which he could use to find his way to the
  target. But, rightly, appearing for the Crown, Mr Perry QC repudiated
  any such interpretation. Parliament cannot have intended to
  criminalise the possession of information of a kind which is useful to
  people for all sorts of everyday purposes and which many members of
  the public regularly obtain or use, simply because that information
  could also be useful to someone who was preparing an act of terrorism.</p></li>
  <li><p>Indeed, it is clear from what Lord Lloyd said in his report that the aim was to catch the possession of information which would
  typically be of use to terrorists, as opposed to ordinary members of
  the population. So, to fall within the section, the information must,
  of its very nature, be designed to provide practical assistance to a
  person committing or preparing an act or terrorism. Because that is
  its nature, section 58(3) requires someone who collects, records or
  possesses the information to show that he had a reasonable excuse for
  doing so. The information is such as “calls for an explanation", as
  Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, said in R v K [2008] 2 WLR 1026,
  1031, para 14. Of course, it is not necessary that the information
  should be useful only to a person committing etc an act of terrorism.
  For instance, information on where to obtain explosives is capable of
  falling within section 58(1), even though an ordinary crook planning a
  bank robbery might also find it useful.</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

criminal-law united-kingdom