had control of the website as far as its contents were concerned. He could upload and edit material. 16. The appellants do not challenge the jury’s findings that in each of the counts in respect of which they were convicted the material was racially inflammatory; nor could they. Rather, the appeal is concerned with issues of law. 17. The appeals against conviction concern only those counts relating to the internet; that is counts 3 – 15. Indeed the other counts (1, 2, 16, 17 and 18), which concerned Sheppard only, related to hard copy material. Each of the internet counts of which the appellants were convicted involved an allegation of publishing racially inflammatory material contrary to section 19 (1) of the 1986 Act. 18. Section 19 of the 1986 Act provides: “(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if – 19. a) He intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or b) Having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. (2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting. (3) References in this part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or to a section of the public.” The appellants advance three grounds of appeal. The main one relates to jurisdiction, the argument being that a publication on the internet is only cognisable in the jurisdiction where the web server upon which it is hosted is located and since in this case the location was California the publication falls outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. We would add that it is common ground that none of the material charged by the internet counts is illegal in the United States of America. The other grounds concern the meaning of “publication” in section 19 and the application of section 19 to publication on the internet and whether the material published on the internet was “written material” within the meaning of section 29 of the 1986 Act. Section 29 provides that “written material” includes any sign or other visible representation. Jurisdiction 20. The judge found that the test to be applied was to be found in the case of R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 2Cr App R 17, [2004] EWCA Crim 631. That is that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants for their conduct because a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England. He