Participation in training
(...)
2. On 1, 2, 6, 8 and 27 February 2012 the defendant searched on the internet specifically for methods of making an explosive using aluminium powder. On 1 February 2012 he searched using the keywords aluminium explosion, home-made explosives, buy flash powder, flash powder formulas, black powder and action man/detonator. The defendant knew that a detonator was a button that could be used to explode a bomb. He had seen on YouTube what could be done with flash powder and had thus continued searching. He also searched for information on whether this could be bought and, when he found that this was not possible, searched for information on how to make this powder.
He also visited the following web pages: www.bombshock.com, www.pyronfo.com, www.pryoforum.nl, www.ebay.nl, www.google.nl and www.metacafe.com. On 2 February 2012 the defendant searched on the website www.instructables.com for information on ‘how to make flash powder’. On 6 February 2012 the defendant searched for information on aluminium powders on the website www.artsuppliesonweb.com. On 8 February 2012 the defendant used the keywords self-made explosives, sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate to search on the websites www.wikipedia.nl, www.naturalspices.eu and www.tuincentrumovervecht.nl. On 27 February 2012 he searched on www.ebay.nl using the following search terms: aluminium powder, aluminium powder indian, sulphur, potassium nitrate (kno3), magnesium and ferrocerium. How explosives can be produced from aluminium powder is explained on these pages by means of instruction videos, detailed manuals, FAQs, guides to common explosives and recommended materials and chemicals. Other matters dealt with are risks, safety regulations and possible legal consequences.
3. The defendant made purchases on two websites, namely www.viscolontkopen.nl and www.carbonwinkel.nl. At Viscolontkopen the defendant bought and paid for 10 metres of detonating fuse and a gas canister on 21 January 2012. He had seen on YouTube how the fuse could burn and what it did. And at Carbonwinkel the defendant bought and paid for one kilogram of aluminium powder on 25 January 2012. The defendant arranged for the goods to be delivered to [a-street nr. 1], his parent’s home in Amsterdam.
4. The findings of the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) show that the fuse and aluminium powder seized from the defendant are suitable ingredients for making explosives. The fuse examined by the NFI is classified as visco fuse, which is used in professional and consumer fireworks and so forth. The aluminium powder can, in principle, be used in explosive mixtures, but also has other applications, for example for thermite charges or paint. When mixed in the right proportions, the aluminium powder is in any event suitable for use as part of a pyrotechnical mixture. Aluminium powder can also be added to pyrotechnical mixtures or explosives, for example to generate increased heat after ignition.
5. In the Court of Appeal’s opinion, the purpose of the defendant’s activities as described above, when viewed in conjunction with one another and taking account of the external form which they took, was to obtain for himself the means and acquire the knowledge needed to make explosives and to become proficient in this skill by searching for information in the manner held to have been proven, in combination with the purchase of the raw materials for making an explosive. The Court of Appeal also takes into account that the defendant – evidently against his better judgement – has been unable or unwilling to provide a plausible explanation for his targeted search activities on the internet or for the presence of the objects discovered in his possession and previously purchased by him, although it would have been in his interests to do so.
The defendant has admittedly stated that he had previously decided against purchasing aluminium powder of a more explosive nature than that which he ultimately purchased and which, in his view, is not dangerous. The Court of Appeal also understands that the fuse and gas canister found in his possession were not dangerous. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal considers that the combination of the fuse and the aluminium powder together with the online search for information about making explosives can be construed as obtaining for himself the means to commit a terrorist offence and for this purpose himself acquiring knowledge and skills and/or carrying out preparatory acts for causing a fire or an explosion, taking into account the conclusion drawn by the NFI in its report of 23 April 2013. This is all the more significant since the defendant, as held above, failed to provide the police with the clarification they requested or offer any plausible explanation for the intended use of the goods he had purchased.
6. The acts found proven at A and B can therefore be construed as obtaining means for himself and acquiring knowledge and skills (taking part in training) within the meaning of article 134a Sr.
(...)
7. The defence has submitted that bringing the consultation of a webpage and hence also the reading of a magazine article within the scope of article 134a of the Criminal Code would be to stretch this provision too far. According to this view, acquiring knowledge or skills on an individual basis through one’s own efforts does not constitute training. The defence therefore concludes that, even if the facts in question are found proven, the defendant should be discharged from all prosecution.
8. In view of the established facts concerning the defendant’s search behaviour on the internet, as set out in point 2 of this section, the Court of Appeal notes that the defendant entered a large number of keywords in his search for information about making explosives (about both parts and raw materials) on a number of days in February 2012 and that he had previously purchased the raw materials for making explosives. In the Court of Appeal’s opinion, these circumstances can be described (as already held above) as a form of training within the meaning of article 134a of the Criminal Code. Given the established facts, it cannot be maintained, after all, that the defendant merely consulted a webpage. When viewed together, the defendant’s activities on the internet were clearly intended to enable him to acquire knowledge. Of further relevance is the fact that the defendant had also proceeded to purchase goods that were intended for making explosives and could be used by him in practice for gaining proficiency in these skills and techniques.
9. The Court of Appeal therefore rejects this defence.
(...)