Foreign Fighters

Two men, Mr. Nader Elhuzayel and Mr. Muhanad Badawi, were found guilty by a jury of conspiring to support the Islamic State on 21 June 2016 after earlier pleading not guilty. In particular, Mr. Elhuzayel, who was arrested prior to boarding a flight to Israel via Turkey at Los Angeles International Airport, was found to have encouraged others to support and join the Islamic State, and to have vowed to travel to Syria to fight for the terrorist group himself. Both were also convicted of financial fraud charges, the proceeds of which were used to fund the travel. A decision with regard to sentencing is anticipated later this year. 

In May 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Omar H, a foreign fighter convicted of training for terrorism. In upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Supreme Court decided that training for terrorism in this context would be interpreted broadly. Thus, researching how to make bombs online, and buying items to make explosive devices in light of Omar H’s other interests in jihad and travel to Syria were sufficient to prove he had trained himself to commit a terrorist crime. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court also confirmed Omar H’s sentence of 18 months’ 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.

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.