Search results

Mashudur Choudhury is the first person to be convicted of terrorism charges in relation to the ongoing war in Syria. Mr. Choudhury, who is from Portsmouth, was found guilty of travelling to Syria to join a jihadi training camp. His intention to become a martyr was evident throughout his conversations with another foreign fighter and his posts on social media. He was arrested and charged upon his return to the UK a few weeks after his departure. Mr. Choudhury has been sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. 

In May 2014, brothers Mohommod Nawaz and Hamza Nawaz pleaded guilty to having attended a terrorist training camp in Syria. The brothers had set off for Syria in August 2013 and were arrested in Calais, France, as they travelled back to the UK. In their car, rifle ammunition and a mobile phone containing videos and pictures of their time in the training camp in Syria were found. Mohommod Nawaz was sentenced to 4,5 years’ imprisonment on 26 November 2014, and Hamza Nawaz received a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.

In April 2016, Mr. Junead Khan was convicted by a jury verdict of attempting to travel to join terrorist organisation ISIL in Syria and of plotting to attack US personnel on military bases in the UK. The evidence showed that Mr. Khan had obtained bomb making instructions, a manual on life in ISIL and that he was attempting to acquire a marine combat knife. He had also been in contact with a jihadi fighter in Syria who offered him the addresses of soldiers to attack. He was convicted with his uncle, Shazib Khan, and was sentenced in May 2016 to life imprisonment. 

Mr. Shazib Khan was found guilty by a jury verdict for planning to travel to Syria and join Islamic State in Levant, a terrorist organisation. In preparation for the travel, Mr. Khan had purchased items for use in Syria and he had also expressed his desire for martyrdom to others who had previously joined ISIL. His case was heard alongside that of his older nephew, Mr. Junead Khan, and he was later sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached.

The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy.