Search results

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. 

The President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had planned a visit to the Netherlands from 6 to 8 October 2010. The government in exile of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) filed a complaint in the Netherlands and requested the Indonesian President to be arrested upon arrival in the Netherlands, and furthermore, that he would be prosecuted for human rights violations committed against Moluccan detainees.

On 14 October 2010, the District Court of The Hague dismissed the case because President Yudhoyono as head of state could not be prosecuted (head of state immunity).

On 22 November 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

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.

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.