(Un)reasonable excuses – On R v Dunleavy, R v Copeland, and Section 58

Abstract

R v Dunleavy and R v Copeland raise a series of questions as to the balance between risk‐management and rights protections in the construction of criminal offences. This note compares and critically assesses these recent cases and the offences they concern, advocating for the reform of section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with particular reference to the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder to date. The current form of section 58, it is argued, speaks to broader challenges facing both UK counter‐terrorism policy and criminal law in their balancing of risks and rights. To achieve a clearer and fairer offence, a broadly interpreted lawful object defence concerned with act‐types rather than act‐tokens, ought to replace the current reasonable excuse defence.