Share:

Unanimous acquittal in terrorism trial at the Old Bailey

KA, a young man of good character who had been remanded in custody for over a year awaiting trial, was acquitted on four terrorism charges after a three-week trial at the Central Criminal Court.

KA was charged with dissemination of three terrorist publications in May 2020 (when he was 17 years old), and possession of a machete in circumstances which allegedly gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession was intended for a purpose connected with the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism in October to November 2021. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of Not Guilty on all counts on the indictment in two hours of deliberations.

The Crown relied extensively on assertions of ‘mindset’ material to suggest KA had an ‘extremist’ mindset. This included reliance on videos, voice notes, nasheeds, social media messages and posts, and internet activity, amongst others. The Crown alleged KA had shared terrorist publications in order to encourage others to commit acts of terrorism. The Crown further alleged the videos were terrorist publications which themselves sought to encourage acts of terror. The Crown asserted KA had obtained a machete for a purpose connected with committing acts of terror. The Crown suggested KA had been radicalised through exposure to ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other propaganda material.

The trial included detailed argument and examination on the following issues:

  • Extensive and successful legal arguments on ‘mindset’ material;

  • The proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, alongside applicable authorities, including the change in burden and standard of proof in relation to s.57 of the 2000 Act;

  • The objective parameters of a terrorist publication under s. 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006;

  • The admissibility of expert opinion evidence on the subject of what may constitute a terrorist publication;

  • Engagement of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights during an assessment of what constitutes a terrorist publication, and when assessing mindset material, including unpalatable speech;

  • Section 8 disclosure applications for important material held by the Crown;

  • Geo-political issues, including argument on whether Bashar Al-Assad’s regime was a legitimate government for the purpose of the definition in s.1(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 after it was disavowed by the UK at the start of the Syrian Civil War, the background to the Syrian conflict and atrocities committed, and whether specified militia groups in various parts of the world were religious or political in nature;

  • Cultural and linguistic issues, including to what extent a passive prayer may be framed in the context of encouragement or inducement to commit acts of terrorism, significance of a Shahadah flag, and the use of certain Arabic terminology and their context dependent meaning; and

  • Theological issues, including examination of the belief system of various sects, types of Salafi and other Islamic groups, interpretation of verses of the Quran and Hadith, definition and scope of terms such as ‘khawarij’ and ‘takfir’, and the proper meaning of ‘jihad.’

The Defence instructed technical experts to examine numerous seized devices, and an expert on culture, language, Islamic law, with experience of terrorist materials to assist. Fundamentally, the Defence built a case discrediting the Crown’s assertion of KA’s terrorist ‘mindset.’ KA denied all allegations, and gave evidence over the course of four days before the jury.

Rabah Kherbane, and Soraya Bauwens (1MCB) were instructed by Amer Ahmad at JD Spicer Zeb Solicitors. Sultana Tafadar KC was instructed as leading counsel.