Advanced Search

The Counter-Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - cases concluded in 2013

Included in the list below is a brief summary of the cases which have been concluded in 2013. It should be noted that, as a general rule, a defendant is entitled to a one third discount on his sentence if he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, with a sliding scale for guilty pleas which are entered later than that. If a defendant is found guilty after trial, the Court can consider the maximum tariff to be available, subject to any personal mitigation that may be submitted on the defendant's behalf. Where a life sentence has been imposed, the tariff shown as the minimum sentence is the time to be served before parole can be considered. Some life sentences are shown as indefinite in which case it is for the Parole Board to monitor the defendant's progress towards a time when he can be considered for release.

R v Pavlo Lapshyn

Mr Lapshyn arrived in the United Kingdom on 24 April 2013 as part of an educational exchange programme. During the evening of 28 April 2013 Mr Lapshyn stabbed an elderly gentleman, Mr Mohammed Saleem, in the back as he was returning from evening prayers at his local Mosque. Mr Lapshyn then left the area. Members of the public came to Mr Saleem's aid but he died later in hospital.

Mr Lapshyn also made and planted three explosive devices near Mosques in the West Midlands area. Each device was of increasing strength, and the last one contained shrapnel in the form of nails.

Mr Lapshyn was arrested on 18 July 2013 and at his home address police found component parts for further explosive devices. Some of the items he had purchased and some he had adapted or made from mobile phones.

During interview Mr Lapshyn admitted to the police that he had made and planted two explosive devices that the police had been aware of, and one that at that time the police were not aware of.

Whilst Mr Lapshyn was in custody police examined his computer and found evidence suggesting that Mr Lapshyn had murdered Mr Saleem, and a day after his arrival in Britain from the Ukraine, he was researching right wing supremacist websites, including those linked to convicted racist murderers in Russia. Mr Lapshyn was further arrested for the murder of Mr Saleem which he admitted.

Mr Lapshyn was charged with the murder of Mr Saleem, two offences contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substance Act 1883, and one offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, in respect of the collection of materials to make more explosive devices, possession of a document containing information about explosives, poisons and use of weapons, and the planting of one of the explosive devices at the Wolverhampton Mosque.

On 21 October 2013 Mr Lapshyn pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management Hearing and was sentenced five days later. On sentencing Mr Lapshyn, Mr Justice Sweeney found that Mr Lapshyn was motivated by his own extreme and appalling prejudices, that the attack on Mr Saleem was committed in the course of a series of acts of terrorism, that there was a significant degree of planning and premeditation, the murder involved the use of a knife taken to the scene for the purpose, that Mr Saleem was particularly vulnerable due to his age and infirmity and the murder took place in a public street with attendant public concern. He sentenced Mr Lapshyn to a life imprisonment with a minimum term of 40 years in respect of the murder of Mr Saleem, and 12 years' imprisonment to run concurrently in respect of one offence contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substance Act 1883 and one offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Top of page

R v Irfan Naseer and others

In September 2011 officers from the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit arrested eleven young men from the Birmingham area and successfully disrupted a plan to commit an act or acts of terrorism on a scale potentially greater than the London bombings in July 2005, if it had been allowed to run its course.

Whilst the nature of the attack(s) was uncertain, covertly recorded conversations suggested the attacks were potentially both a suicide attack(s) using rucksacks containing improvised explosive devices, and devices timed to explode using clocks. Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali, the three main plotters, intended to martyr themselves during the attack(s).

In 2009 and 2010 Irfan Naseer and Irfan Khalid had travelled to Pakistan for training in terrorism, which included training in bomb making, weapons and poison making and they had made martyrdom videos. On their return they passed on some of the skills to Ashik Ali, Bahader Ali, Mohammed Rizwan and Mujahid Hussain.

This enterprise required funding, so the three main plotters, Rahin Ahmed, Bahader Ali, and Mujahid Hussain collected money under the guise of 'Muslim Aid'. Only £1,500 of the considerable monies collected was sent to the charity. In order to make more money, Rahin Ahmed unsuccessfully invested in a trading account ("Forex").

Whilst engaged in the attack planning, Irfan Naseer and Rahin Ahmed assisted four young males, Ishaaq Hussan, Shahid Khan, Naweed Ali and Khobaib Hussain, to travel to Pakistan for terrorist training for the purpose of a future terrorist attack or attacks. On 25 July 2012 at Woolwich Crown Court these four males pleaded guilty to an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Bahader Ali, Mohammed Rizwan and Mujahid Hussain were aware of the attack planning and were involved in conversations in which they gained useful information from Irfan Naseer and Irfan Khalid.

In the days leading up to 18 September 2011 (the date of the first arrests), Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali had experimented in making improvised explosive devices at Ashik Ali's home. They discussed methods of attack, the number of people that they could potentially kill and the size of the group, which would carry out the attacks.

On 28 August 2012 Rahin Ahmed pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

On 3 October 2012 Mujahid Hussain pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and an offence of failing to disclose information contrary to section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000.

On 10 April 2013 Bahader Ali pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and an offence contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Mohamed Rizwan pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali pleaded not guilty to 12 offences contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. On 21 February 2013, following a trial at Woolwich Crown Court, they were convicted of all offences. The acts included travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism, collecting money for terrorism, assisting others to travel to Pakistan for training in terrorism, recruiting others for terrorism and planning a bombing campaign.

All were sentenced on 26 April 2013 at Woolwich Crown Court. Irfan Naseer was sentenced to life imprisonment for each count (and has to serve a minimum term of 18 years). Irfan Khalid received an extended sentence of 23 years' imprisonment, comprising a custodial element of 18 years and an extended licence period of 5 years). Ashik Ali received an extended sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, comprising a custodial element of 15 years and an extended licence period of 5 years). Rahin Ahmed received an extended sentence of 17 years' imprisonment comprising a custodial element of 12 years and an extended licence of 5 years. Bahader Ali was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment for the offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and 4 years' imprisonment concurrent for the offence contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Mohammed Rizwan was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment and Mujahid Hussain was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for the offence contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and 2 years' imprisonment concurrent for the offence contrary to section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000. Ishaaq Hussan, Shahid Khan, Naweed Ali and Khobaib Hussain were each sentenced to 40 months' imprisonment.

Top of page

'DD'

In October 2012, an individual who is known as 'DD' (all those made subject to a TPIM are given initials to protect their identity) was made the subject of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Notice. The TPIM Notice specifies twelve different measures that DD must comply with in order to prevent his involvement in terrorism related activity.

In February 2013, DD attended a public meeting in Birmingham organised for the Somalian community. He also gave a speech at the meeting which was broadcast on a Somalian TV channel called Royal TV. In March 2013, whilst under surveillance DD went into a local internet café and used one of the computers to access the internet. These activities contravened three of the measures in his TPIM Notice.

On 21 June 2013 at the Central Criminal Court, DD pleaded guilty to three breaches of his TPIM Notice contrary to section 23 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. He was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment concurrent on each offence.

Top of page

R v Mohammed Elyasse Taleouine

Mohammed Taleouine was found in possession of a MAC-10 machine pistol and 24 rounds of ammunition. He was charged with two offences contrary to the Firearms Act 1968.

During police interviews Mohammed Taleouine admitted being in possession of the firearm and the ammunition. He said that he agreed to look after a bag for a person who he would not name. He knew the bag contained a gun of some sort. He initially kept the bag hidden somewhere in West London but later moved it to his father's van and was in the process of moving it when he was stopped and arrested by the police.

On 22 March 2013 Mohammed Taleouine pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management Hearing at Woolwich Crown Court. He was sentenced on 14 June 2013 to the statutory minimum of 5 years' imprisonment for possession of the firearm and 2 years' imprisonment to run concurrently in respect of the ammunition. An order was made for forfeiture and destruction of the firearm and ammunition.

Top of page

R v Omar Khan, Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Hasseen, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed and Anzal Hussain

On 30 June 2012 Omar Khan and Jewel Uddin were stopped by a police officer whilst driving from Dewsbury to Birmingham. The car they were driving was not insured and was impounded. The car was examined two days later and found to contain a number of weapons, an improvised explosive device (IED), and the component parts of pipe bombs, and a document that suggested the users of the car intended to attack an English Defence League (EDL) rally due to take place in Dewsbury on 30 June 2012.

CCTV evidence showed that the car Omar Khan and Jewel Uddin had been driving had travelled in convoy with another car from Birmingham to Dewsbury, arriving after the EDL rally had ended. When the two cars got to Dewsbury they drove around the area, apparently trying to find out what was going on. The rally had ended early because a key speaker had not attended.

The occupants of the second car were identified as Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed and Anzal Hussain. They were arrested together with Omar Khan and Jewel Uddin and a sixth male, Mohammed Hasseen, who had not travelled with them to Dewsbury.

Police investigation revealed that the six males had made detailed preparations for the planned attack on 30 June 2012, which included:

  • Omar Khan and Jewel Uddin trying to get bank loans;
  • The purchase of the two cars used to travel to Dewsbury;
  • Omar Khan and Jewel Uddin purchased gloves and knives;
  • Zohaib Ahmed carried out a number of internet searches about the EDL and the rally in Dewsbury;
  • The making of the IED, and the obtaining of other weapons; and
  • The drafting the document that was found in car driven by Omar Khan, which explained the reasons for attacking the EDL rally.

Extremist ideology was found on computers and media devices at the home addresses of all of the defendants. In particular, Al Qaida's publication 'Inspire' was found on a computer at Mohammed Hasseen's home address. This edition of Inspire contained an article about how to make a pipe bomb, similar to the component parts found in car driven by Omar Khan on 30 June 2012. Mohammed Hasseen was charged with an offence contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for possession of a record likely to be useful to a terrorist in relation to his possession of the Inspire publication.

At Woolwich Crown Court on 30 April 2013 all six men pleaded guilty to an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Mohammed Hasseen also pleaded guilty to the additional offence contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

On 10 June 2013 they were sentenced at the Central Criminal Court. Omar Khan, Jewel Uddin and Zohaib Ahmed were sentenced to 19 years and 6 months' imprisonment with an extended licence period of 5 years. Mohammed Hasseen, Mohammed Saud and Anzal Hussain were sentenced to 18 years and 9 months' imprisonment with an extended licence period of five years. Mohammed Hasseen was additionally sentenced to two years' imprisonment for the offence contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006, to run concurrently.

All six men are appealing their sentences.

Top of page

Khalid Baqa

In July 2012 police officers searched Khalid Baqa's address. A rucksack was found on top of a wardrobe in his teenage daughters' bedroom. The rucksack contained 93 copies of a disc which had multiple files under the title "Awakening" and 18 copies of a disc containing similar material under the title "Pure Intentions". Further copies of both discs were found elsewhere in Khalid Baqa's home, in his car and at his place of work. In total, he was in possession of 141 copies of the first disc and 211 copies of the second. The underlying message of both discs was the encouragement and promotion of extremist Islamic beliefs and the purported justification, glorification and encouragement of violent jihadist activity.

It is not known who was responsible for the creation of either of the original discs from which the copies were made, but it was not Khalid Baqa. He said he was storing the discs for another person and that he intended returning them in due course.

On 2 April 2013 at the Central Criminal Court Khalid Baqa accepted having unlawful possession of the discs and pleaded guilty to possessing the discs with a view to their dissemination contrary to section 2 (1)(2)(f) of the Terrorism Act 2006. He was sentenced to a total of 2 years' imprisonment with a consequential Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 notification period of 10 years.

Top of page

R v Richard Dart, Jahangir Alom, Ruksana Begum and Ayan Hadi

In summer 2011 Richard Dart and Jahanghir Alom were in Pakistan where they hoped to be trained in terrorist techniques. They failed to join a terrorist training camp, although they did receive some advice or instruction, in particular, about the potential advantage of conducting terrorism in the UK. They returned to London in August 2011. By late October they had booked flights back to Pakistan, and were due to depart on 11 November 2011. When they went to Heathrow to fly to Karachi on 11 November 2011 they stopped by the police and therefore did not travel. Their home addresses were searched at the same time.

Examination of Richard Dart's computer showed a highly unusual method of communication, employed as a counter-surveillance technique. The method of covert communication employed was to conduct a silent "conversation" – in fact an exchange of lines of text typed on to the screen of a laptop computer shared between two people sitting in the same room. The participants typed the text of their conversation into a Microsoft Word document and then deleted the text at the end of the conversation. So far as they knew, the contents were destroyed.

On 5 July 2012, Richard Dart, Jahangir Alom, Ruksana Begum and Ayan Hadi were arrested. A police hi-tech computer investigator found the fragments of text on Richard Dart's computer and it was possible to forensically recover and reconstruct the conversations. Evidential presentation of the material, and its interpretation made sense of these conversations and set them in context. This was a complex piece of work. The technique had not previously been used in any UK prosecution.

Such "conversations" had been held between Richard Dart and a male called Imran Mahmood and between Richard Dart and his wife Ayan Hadi. This proved that, in advance of their travel, Richard Dart sought detailed advice from Imran Mahmood who had received terrorist training in Pakistan. Imran Mahmood was able to give Richard Dart useful information about where to go and how to gain access to those people that could assist them as well as methods they could employ to ensure that the authorities would be unable to track their activities. The training that Richard Dart and Jahangir Alom sought would have taught them the skills and techniques necessary to commit acts of terrorism both abroad but also in the United Kingdom, although there is no evidence that any planning for an identifiable target had actually been carried out. Surveillance showed that Richard Dart and Imran Mahmood continued to meet after the failed November 2011 trip, and that Richard Dart and Jahangir Alom were very close associates who met on an almost daily basis until their arrest. There was evidence that Jahangir Alom had falsely obtained visas to visit Pakistan and in arranging travel.

Ruksana Begum was charged with an offence contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, namely that on 5 July 2012 she was possession of a document or record likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, namely "Inspire 8" and "Inspire 9", which is a publication produced by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. They were on a SD card found amongst her possessions when she was arrested. The publications provide practical advice on how to use a handgun, how to construct a remote control detonator and information that would have been of use to someone who intended to create an incendiary device to ignite destructive forest fires. Ruksana Begum pleaded guilty on 12 October 2012 at the Central Criminal Court and was sentenced on 6 December 2012 to 12 months' imprisonment. The notification period under section 53(1)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 is ten years and the SD card was ordered to be destroyed.

The three men were charged with an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000 on 18 July 2012 which alleged that between 25 July 2010 and 6 July 2012, with the intention of committing acts of terrorism or assisting another to commit such acts, engaged in conduct in preparation for giving effect to their intention, namely travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism, travelling abroad to commit acts of terrorism and advising and counseling the commission of terrorist acts by providing information about travel to Pakistan and terrorism training, and operational security whilst there. Imran Mahmood was sentenced to an extended sentence of 14 years 9 months, comprising a custodial element of 9 years 9 months and an extended licence period of 5 years. A Notification Order under section 53(1)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act was made for a period of 15 years. Richard Dart was sentenced to an extended sentence of 11 years, comprising a custodial element of 6 years and an extended licence period of 5 years. A Notification order under section 53(1)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act was made for a period of 15 years.

Jahangir Alom was sentenced to 4 years 6 months' imprisonment. A Notification Order under section 53(1)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act was made for a period of 10 years.

Richard Dart also had computer-logged exchanges with his wife Ayan Hadi, in which it is clear that she was fully apprised of her husband's travel plans and his terrorist intentions. Her case was dealt with separately and she was charged with an offence of failing to provide information contrary to Section 38B (1)(b) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 in that between 1 July 2011 and 6 July 2012 she had information which she knew or believed might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of Richard Dart for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, and she did not disclose the information as soon as reasonably practicable. She pleaded guilty on 5 July 2013 at the Central Criminal Court and was sentenced on 16 August 2013 to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, with condition of probation supervision. A Notification Order under section 53(1)(c) of Counter-Terrorism Act was made for a period of 10 years.

Top of page

R v Beevers and Parrish

Luke Beevers and Catherine Parrish were active members of the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance (NAVA), an organisation that opposes the testing of products on animals. There was a NAVA campaign, which began in November 2011, against a company called Harlan and its suppliers. A series of tactics/escalating conduct included: telephone contact by a member of NAVA telephoning the supplier companies to try to persuade them to terminate their contracts with Harlan; 'warning' that they may/will be targeted by activists if they do not; email contact by NAVA members/supporters emailing the target company expressing their views on its dealings with Harlan and asking it to withdraw from its contract; lawful demonstrations; demonstrations with unlawful behaviour; and finally attacks on the target company's premises whereby damage is caused.

SRCL and Sunlight are two companies which had contractual relationships to supply services to Harlan. SCRL's premises were damaged on two occasions. On 6 January 2012 red paint slogans were sprayed onto external walls and windows stating: "puppy killers", "blood on your hands", "animal abusers" and "ALF". The locks for the front door and a fire door had been filled with super glue. A poster was glued to the front door as was an envelope containing a note stating: "We warned you ... drop out of Harlan or it will only get worse". On 24 January 2012 red paint slogans were sprayed onto walls and windows stating: "puppy killers", "ALF", "pull out of Harlan" and "blood money". Windows were broken and red paint had been thrown at the front doors and ground floor windows. A poster pasted onto the door displayed an image of the Managing Director of SRCL together with the words: "wanted for supporting the torture and murder of sentient beings". Sunlight's premises were damaged overnight on 21 January 2012. Red paint slogans were sprayed on the walls stating: "Puppy Killer get out of Harlan", "Sunlight get out of Harlan", "Get out of Harlan" and "No Sunlight". A padlock had also been filled with super glue.

On each occasion the premises were forensically examined and the police obtained samples of paint, glass and glue.

At a further demonstration at SRCL on 26 January 2012, Luke Beevers and Catherine Parrish were arrested. Their addresses were subsequently searched and red paint and glue were found at Catherine Parrish's home address. Other items found at their addresses were stained with red paint and glue or contained glass fragments. The paint, glue, stains and glass were scientifically compared with the samples recovered from SRCL and Sunlight. DNA samples recovered from the items were compared with those taken from Luke Beevers and Catherine Parrish. Through a combination of DNA, glass fragments, hammers, glue and paint, both were linked to the attacks on SRCL's and Sunlight's premises. In addition Catherine Parrish's fingerprint was found on the envelope that had been attached to the front doors of SRCL on 6 January 2012 and there was evidence that she had ordered the anti-vivisection posters glued to the walls and windows of SRCL's premises.

Luke Beevers and Catherine Parrish were jointly charged with two offences of interfering with a contractual relationship contrary to section 145 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 relating to the damage to SRCL's and Sunlight's premises. They pleaded guilty to both offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2013 and their cases were committed to the Leeds Crown Court for sentence. They were each sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years, a 150 hour unpaid work requirement, to pay £500 compensation and a 3 year anti-social behaviour order.

Top of page

Supreme Court - R v Gul

This case involved a significant legal argument about the way in which the definition of terrorism is to be interpreted and applied. The case had potentially far-reaching implications as to what activities would be capable of constituting terrorist offences. The argument involved detailed consideration of international law and various definitions of terrorism in States around the world. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecution arguments that the definition could not be construed narrowly and fully accepted the arguments on the international law submissions.

Link to judgement: www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0124_Judgment.pdf

Top of page