Hillary Doe (an anti-government political activist) has been recently convicted of being in possession of material which may be knowingly used for terrorist or subversive purposes under the (imaginary) National Security Act 2018 which carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment.A manual detailing how to hack into and corrupt classified government material online, together with propaganda documents linked to a known anarchist group was found in a suitcase behind a wardrobe in Hillary's house.

Section 5 of the Act states that where it is proved that the defendant was in possession of material capable of being used for terrorist or subversive purposes, 'it shall be a defence to prove that he/she did not know and had no reasonable grounds for knowing that the material in his/her possession could be used for such purposes.'

At a voir dire during the trial, Grump J. ruled that the section placed a legal burden on Hillary to satisfy the jury that she lacked the required mens rea. Hillary then unsuccessfully argued before the jury that the suitcase was left by a former lodger and she did not know that the folder contained the material it did.

In his charge to the jury, Grump J. said "if you are of the opinion that Ms. Doe did not know that the material could be used for terrorist purposes, and you are satisfied of this this beyond reasonable doubt, then you should acquit." Hillary was convicted and Grump J. proceeded to 'lock her up' by way of a 4-year prison sentence.

Arising from those proceedings, Hilary has now also been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by intimidating a witness contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1999. S. 41 of that Act provides that once it is proven that the accused intimidated a witness/juror, it "shall be evidence that the accused intended to pervert the course of justice." Hilary admits that she did exchange harsh words outside the courthouse with a prosecution witness (a former associate whom Hillary feels betrayed her) but denies that she ever had the intention to pervert the course of justice.

Hillary is outraged and seeks your advice on her chances of successfully appealing her conviction. She believes that s. 5 of the 2018 Act constitutes an unconstitutional attack on the presumption of innocence and that Grump J.'s charge to the jury was defective.

She also seeks your advice on the burden and standard of proof applicable to the charge under the 1999 Act which is listed for trial shortly.