Search results

Sarwar and Ahmed travelled from the UK to Turkey and then Syria on 15 May 2013. Both had been in communications on social media with a number of figures discussing jihad and their plans to travel to Syria. They deceived their parents as to the purpose of their trip, which, in reality, was to become involved with anti-Assad forces. After their departure, Sarwar’s mother found a letter from him saying he planned to join Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, and his parents then told the police.

Sarwar and Ahmed were arrested when they returned to the UK on 13 January 2014. A search of Sarwar’s luggage found over 1600 deleted pictures including those of Sarwar and Ahmed in combat zones and pictures of explosives being made. Both pled guilty to the offense of preparation of terrorist acts contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 and were sentenced to 17 years and 8 months in prison. Sarwar and Ahmed appealed the decision.

Sarwar and Ahmed claimed that once they arrived in Syria, they disassociated themselves from combat activities and offered humanitarian assistance.  The Court found that while there was sustained preparation and travel, the trial court judge reached an incorrect conclusion on their involvement in combat activity. Therefore, sentences were reduced to 15 years and 3 months.

Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Mizanur Rahman were charged with inviting support for the Islamic State, which is designated as a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom. Both men are well-known speakers who have publicly supported the Islamic State, including by attending protests at which Islamic State banners were displayed.

While Choudary and Rahman’s speeches did not explicitly invite violence, the Court found them to be clear statements of support for the Islamic State, based on the common-sense meaning of the word “support.” According to the Court, “support” is not limited only to assistance that is practical or tangible, but also extends to support in the form of endorsement of approval of a proscribed organisation.

Finally, the Court addressed the appellants’ contention that the law in question violated their right to freedom of expression. The Court found the right to freedom of expression to be not absolute, specifically when the law prescribes the criminalization of the conduct and its purpose is to respond to issues such as national security which are listed in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman were both sentenced to 5.5 years’ imprisonment for inviting support for the Islamic State. Both men signed an oath of allegiance to the terrorist group that was published online and had broadcast a series of lectures online in which they denounced democracy and called for Muslims to support the establishment of the caliphate. In sentencing the two defendants, Justice Holroyde emphasised the seriousness of these offences, despite their indirect nature and the lack of violence directly caused, due to “the timing of [the] … communications, [the defendants’] high standing, the size of the audience [addressed] …, and the likelihood that those audiences would include impressionable persons who would be influenced by what” was said (p. 9). Upon release, both Mr. Choudary and Mr. Rahman will be subject to notification requirements for 15 years. 

On 15 September 2011 a badly wounded insurgent was killed in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, by Alexander Blackman, then an Acting Colour Sergeant of the Royal Marines. In video evidence, Blackman appeared to be acting calmly and deliberately in removing the insurgent from possible observation, shooting the insurgent and giving instructions to his subordinates, including indicating “Obviously this doesn’t go anywhere, fellas. I’ve just broke the Geneva Convention”. On the basis of apparent premeditation, Blackman was convicted of murder by the court martial. In this appeal, however, the court considered fresh evidence (notably psychiatric evaluations carried out following the original conviction) suggesting that Blackman was incapable of making rational judgements or exercising self-control as a result of adjustment disorder and several “exceptional stressors”, including exhaustion, isolation, and perceived lack of leadership and support by his superiors. In light of the adjustment disorder and stressors, the court found the original conviction “unsafe” and substituted a finding of manslaughter in place of murder.