Advanced Search

The Counter-Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - cases concluded in 2014

Included in the list below is a brief summary of the cases which have been concluded in 2014. 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 Yusaf Sarwar and Nahin Ahmed

On 15 May 2013 Yusaf Sarwar and Nahin Ahmed flew to Istanbul from Heathrow Airport having told their parents that they were travelling to Turkey on holiday together. Shortly after their departure the families became concerned as to the true reason for their travel. Yusuf Sarwar's mother found a letter in his bedroom addressed to her a headed "PLEASE READ" which explained that the real purpose for his holiday was to "do jihad fesibilillah for Allah". He asked for forgiveness from various friends and family members, gave instructions as to how and when to cancel his phone contract and the location of a cheque so that his debts coukd be settled. He confirmed that he was going to Syria to help the oppressed and fight Allah's enemies and would be joining is "Kataib Al Muhajireen" which is part of "Al Nusra". Mrs Sarwar took this letter into her local police station and reported her son as missing.

During a search at the home address of Nahin Ahmed police recovered a number of items including a Toshiba laptop. A police Hi-Tech Examiner found Skype chat which showed Nahin Ahmed's intentions of travelling to Syria.

As a result of evidence obtained in an investigation into a female called Runa Kahn, it was established that having arrived in Istanbul, Yusuf Sarwar and Nahin Ahmed then made their way across the border into Syria and became involved in the conflict with Syrian Government Forces. Between April and October 2013, Nahin Ahmed engaged in WhatsApp conversations with Runa Khan. Their first WhatsApp contact was on 7 April 2013, when Nahin Ahmed was still in the UK and their final conversation took place on 6 October 2013, by which time he had been in Syria for several months. On 24 June 2013 Nahin Ahmed messaged "Lookin at syria Lol Haha" indicating that he was very close to the Turkish/Syrian border. The next day he observed "A lot of egyption here". On 26 June 2013 he reported that he was "Jus waitin for nxt stage Food is less Buh Alhamdulilah Haha I finishd trainun." On 13 August Nahin Ahmed told her "I hav like 10 days guardin..n 7 day rest guardin 80-20m from kuffar." He sent her a photograph of himself, sitting on a chair next to a pile of sandbags and flanked by guns on either side.

On 13 January 2014, both males travelled back to the UK from Istanbul and were arrested at Heathrow airport.Yusuf Sarwar was found in possession of a camera containing approximately 200 relevant images which show him and Nahin Ahmed doing physical training, training with firearms and carrying firearms as part of an armed group of fighters.

The Forensic Explosive Laboratory tested a number of items of clothing, baggage and other personal items belonging to both defendants, some of which can be seen in the photographs. Many of them contain traces of nitro-glycerine, TNT and RDX.

Both males were charged with an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. They pleaded guilty on 7 July 2014 and were sentenced on 5 December 2014 at Woolwich Crown Court. Both were found to be dangerous and received extended sentences of 17 years' 8 months. The custodial element is 12 years' 8 months with extended licences of 5 years' 8 months. They also have a Terrorism Notification Order for 30 years.

R v Baba Seidu

On 30 January 2014 Mr Seidu was stopped by UK Border Agency officers at the port of Dover. He was informed that the officers intended to examine him under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to establish whether he had been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of act of terrorism. The legal basis for the search was fully explained to Mr Seidu and the relevant documentation served upon him. Mr Seidu was aggressive and abusive throughout the time he was detained, accusing officers of assaulting him and accusing the nurse and the interpreter of lying and being corrupt.

Mr Seidu was later interviewed under police caution with an interpreter and a solicitor present. He accepted that the police were entitled to carry out the examination requested.

Mr Seidu was charged with one offence contrary to paragraph 18 (c) of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 200. He was refused bail and appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court. On 1 February 2014 Mr Seidu pleaded guilty, expressed remorse for his actions and was fined £400 and ordered to pay £40 victim surcharge, £85 costs or spend 14 days custody in lieu.

Top of page

R v Barjinder Sangha, Mandeep Sandhu, Dilbag Singh, Lakhbir Singh and Harjit Kaur

On the evening of 30 September 2012 Kuldip Brar was attacked and stabbed by a group of four men on Old Quebec Street in the West End of London. The victim is an Indian national who was on holiday with his wife, who was also assaulted by one of the attackers.

Mr Brar is now retired, but during his career as a general in the Indian Army he oversaw a number of military operations which have made him a target for Sikh extremist groups. All of the defendants are Sikh and it was the Crown's case that they deliberately set out to attack Mr Brar in revenge for his actions during his military career.

On becoming aware of Mr Brar's presence in the United Kingdom, members of the group travelled to London on 28 and 29 September 2012 in order to conduct an apparent reconnaissance of the area in which he was staying. On 30 September 2012, Harjit Kaur followed Mr and Mrs Brar around London and provided her co-defendants with regular updates as to the location of the couple. This information enabled Barjinder Sangha, Mandeep Sandhu, Dilbag Singh and Lakhbir Singh to intercept and attack the Brars shortly before they returned to their hotel.

Mr Brar was attacked with a knife and sustained deep cuts to his face and neck. He fought back against his attackers, which no doubt helped prevent them causing even more serious harm. Barjinder Sangha, Mandeep Sandhu, Dilbag Singh and Lakhbir Singh were directly involved in the attack on Mr Brar. The role of Harjit Kaur in the attack was equally crucial. She was an inconspicuous figure, who was able to follow the couple without arousing suspicion and enabled the four men to carry out a swift and effective ambush on Mr Brar and his wife.

Telephone records, cell site analysis, ANPR sightings of the vehicle driven by Barjinder Sangha and records of the usage of Harjit Kaur's Oyster card all enabled a detailed picture to be assembled of the movements of the defendants, and of the frequency and duration of contact between them, during the two days leading up to the attack and the day of the attack itself.

Barjinder Sangha and Mandeep Sandhu were apprehended within five days of the attack, and Dilbag Singh was arrested shortly thereafter. However it was not until February 2013 that action was taken against Harjit Kaur due to the extensive work involved in tracking her movements. Lakhbir Singh, had left the country and could not be found.

All five defendants were charged jointly with wounding Mr Brar contrary to Section 18 Offences against the Person Act.

Barjinder Sangha pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management Hearing and accepted being the male with the knife who inflicted the injuries. He was sentenced to 10 years 6 months' imprisonment.

Mandeep Sandhu, Dilbag Singh and Harjit Kaur were all convicted after trial. Mandeep Sandhu and Dilbag Singh were sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment and Harjit Kaur was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment.

On 30 January 2014, police were informed that Lakhbir Singh had been to an Italian police station on 14 January with his lawyer saying he believed he was wanted because he had been involved in the attack on Mr Brar in London in 2012. A European Arrest Warrant was issued at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 19 February and Lakhbir Singh was arrested on the same day.

Lakhbir Singh consented to his extradition at the Court of Appeal in Ancona on 21 February and appeared before the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 7 March, when he was sent to Southwark Crown Court for a preliminary hearing on 21 March 2014. At the preliminary hearing he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

Top of page

R v Hussain and Diamantis

Nabeel Hussain was convicted of engaging in conduct in preparation for a terrorist act(s) in 2008 for his involvement in "The Aircraft Bomb Plot" in 2006.

On Thursday 19 September 2013 Nabeel Hussain was invited into a police station to be interviewed about a driving without insurance offence in order to establish whether he had committed any such offence and whether he was likely to have breached his licence (probation from prison) conditions as a result. Mr Hussain failed to attend the police station and then failed to return to his home address that evening. He was therefore in breach of his licence conditions and consequently the London Probation Trust requested his recall to prison.

A warrant recalling Mr Hussain to prison was granted and as a result, all ports were notified of his status.

On Monday 23 September 2013 a male was collected by a mini cab from an address in North London at about 1900hrs. He was taken to Stansted Airport and entered the departures terminal. This male approached the check in counter and produced an e-ticket and genuine British passport in order to check onto a flight to Istanbul, Turkey. He passed through the security and search areas without incident and was then approached by Essex Special Branch officers who wished to check his passport. It was then confirmed that the person travelling was Nabeel Hussain and not the person named on the passport. Mr Hussain was arrested under the Identity Documents Act 2010.

Enquiries into the purchase of the flight ticket which Mr Hussain attempted to leave the country revealed that Michael Diamantis had bought the ticket. Mr Diamantis was arrested on Thursday 26 September 2013 on suspicion of conspiring to commit an identity document offence. During his detention, an identity parade was held, in order to establish whether he was the person who purchased the ticket at the travel agents. He was positively identified by the staff as being the buyer and subsequently charged with Fraud by False Representation.

Both men pleaded guilty, Nabeel Hussain in March 2014 and Michael Diamantis in May 2014. Hussain was sentenced to two years' and four months' imprisonment. Diamantis was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.

Top of page

R v Forman

Ian Forman was employed by a recycling company for a period of four to five years. In April 2013, during this employment, it was discovered that he had breached company policy by accessing the internet for his own purposes, namely researching chemicals and explosive substances. Internal disciplinary procedures were pursued and during the interviews within that process, he suggested the research was to complement his hobby of producing home-made fireworks, which he admitted making. One of the chemicals he had been researching was potassium permanganate.

The police were notified by Mr Forman's employers and as a result, Mr Forman was arrested on suspicion of preparing for acts of terrorism contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. His home address was searched and a number of items were recovered, including potassium nitrate, sulphur, charcoal, a crude home-made improvised explosive device (IED), documentation linked to right wing extremism, a replica Second World War Nazi uniform and a quantity of media storage devices.

The Forensic Explosive Laboratory confirmed that the crude home-made IED was viable and that if ignited it would explode, set alight nearby combustible material and cause injury to persons in close proximity. In addition, there was sufficient quantity of potassium nitrate, sulphur and charcoal to make 1.2 kg of Black Powder when mixed together in the correct amounts.

Examination of one of the computers revealed further evidence linked to the manufacture, use and testing of explosive devices, material suggesting racial/religious hatred and potential target locations. Also recovered was a document entitled "To Merseyside Police" which included a number of references to Nazi Germany and racist comments.

An examination of Mr Forman's Samsung mobile telephone revealed numerous text messages which presented evidence of right wing material, possible attack planning, extreme and racist ideology.

Ian Forman pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial on 25 March 2014. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on 1 May 2014.

Top of page

R v Ibrahim Hassan and Shah Hussain

Ibrahim Hassan and Shah Hussain had known each other at least since 2004, when both are known to have been involved with Al-Muhajiroun, the Islamic extremist group that was established by Omar Bakri Muhammed and Anjem Choudhary. The group operated in Britain until it was proscribed by the government in 2010 after having been linked to a number of episodes of international terrorism.

In 2008 both Mr Hassan and Mr Hussain were tried with a group of others who were either members of or associated with Al-Muhajiroun for offences arising out of a series of speeches delivered at the Regent's Park Mosque in London on 9 November 2004. The Crown's case was that their purpose was to encourage terrorist activity abroad, and to raise money for such activity.

In November 2012, in the course of routine investigations, police became aware of the existence of five audio files which had been uploaded to the internet. The files were entitled "In Pursuit of Allah's Governance on Earth" by Abu Nusaybah, which is an established honorific name for Ibrahim Hassan. They were assessed and found to contain extremist Islamic material which encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism.

The files were found on a file sharing website, effectively a "free digital library", through which people may post documents and other types of files such as MP3 files, videos, photographs, and other images, including the texts of writings.

Police became aware that Mr Hassan was providing a pre-recorded interview to media on Friday 24 May 2013 and arrested him.

A transcript of the media shows Ibrahim Hassan endeavouring to mitigate for the actions of Michael Adebolajo, the murderer of Lee Rigby.

In his lectures, Ibrahim Hassan encouraged his listeners to go to a website which he said he ran with his brother Abu Muwahid. As the investigation continued, it was discovered that Shah Hussain used the pseudonym of Abu Muwahid.

Mr Hussain was arrested on 5 June 2013. Amongst the items seized from his flat was an iMac, which linked him with purchasing the domain name for the website, as well revealing that he himself had delivered lectures which encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism.

The computer examination also provided several instances of the user having visited the website's YouTube channel. A capture of the YouTube channel included a video entitled "The Ruling on Insulting the Prophet - Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki", which was apparently uploaded on 14 September 2012. The user summary described the lecture as "very relevant our time" (sic), "especially in light of the recent movie insulting Muhammad (pbuh)".

In this lecture, Anwar al-Awlaki, the late Al Qaeda propagandist and proponent of violent Jihad, asserted that Muslims did not require a fatwa or other injunction to react when the Prophet Mohammed was insulted, rather they should take violent action against those who are perceived to be responsible for the insult.

Ibrahim Hassan and Shah Hussain each pleaded guilty on 24 March 2014 to encouraging terrorism relating to the lectures they had given. They were sentenced to three years' imprisonment on 6 June 2014. In addition they pleaded guilty to jointly disseminating the Anwar al-Awlaki video on their You Tube channel. Ibrahim Hassan was sentenced to three years' imprisonment concurrent and Shah Hussain (who pleaded guilty slightly earlier in the proceedings) was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment concurrent.

Top of page

R v Paul Golding

On the evening of 3 April 2014 Paul Golding, the leader of an organisation called Britain First, visited Chafont Hundred, a small town in Essex, along with a group of male supporters. The group's primary intention was to confront a man called Sajeel Shahid who, according to an article in the Daily Mail, had been a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation and had been involved in training terrorists in Pakistan. In fact, the house that the group intended to visit actually belonged to Mr Shahid's brother, and at the time of their visit only his wife, Munnazza Munawar, and their three children were at home.

On arrival in the area the group began posting leaflets entitled 'no hate preachers in Hepburn close' through a number of doors in the vicinity before approaching Mrs Munawar's front door. PauL Golding knocked and, although Mrs Munawar did not open the door due to her understandable concern, he asked her to pass a message on to Sajeel Shahid that he should get out of the neighbourhood. He ended by stating that he would return and posted one of the offending leaflets under her door before departing. Mrs Munawar was left in a state of fear for herself and her children.

One member of Paul Golding's group filmed the whole visit including a number of speeches that he made to camera. The video recording of this incident was subsequently posted on the website of Britain First. In this footage Paul Golding could be seen to be wearing a green bomber type jacket which had a visible emblem on the right hand breast. The others in his group all wore similar jackets which were available to buy on the Britain First website.

Paul Golding was prosecuted for an offence of harassing a person at their home, contrary to section 42A Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and an offence of wearing a uniform in connection with political objects, contrary to s1(1) Public Order Act 1936. The latter offence required the consent of the Attorney General. After a trial at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court he was convicted of both offences. He received a fine of £425 and was made the subject of a restraining order to prevent him from harassing Mrs Munawar.

Top of page

R v Mohommod Hassin Nawaz and Hamza Nawaz

On 27 May 2014 two brothers, Mohommod Hassin Nawaz and Hamza Nawaz pleaded guilty to conspiring between 1 January 2012 and 16 September 2013 to attend a place used for terrorist training knowing or believing that instruction or training would be provided there wholly or partly for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism, contrary to section 8(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Mohommod Hassin Nawaz also pleaded guilty on 16 September 2013 to unlawfully having in his possession ammunition to which section 1(1) Firearms Act 1968 applied, namely five rounds of 7.62 x 36 rifle ammunition without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate, contrary to section 1(1) and (4) of the Firearms Act 1968.

On 25 August 2013, the brothers were reported missing to the police. On 16 September 2013 they were stopped by UK border officials in Calais on a ferry bound for Dover. Their car was searched. The rifle cartridges were found and an iPhone. The iPhone contained a number of photographs and video clips that established that the brothers had been in Syria and that they had attended a terrorist training camp while there.

On 26 November 2014 Mohommod Nawaz was sentenced to 4 and half years' imprisonment for the conspiracy and 2 years' imprisonment concurrent for possession of the ammunition without a certificate. Hamza Nawaz was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for the conspiracy offence.

Top of page

R v Mohammed Saeed Ahmed and Mohammed Naeem Ahmed

On 19 November 2013 two brothers, Mohammed Saeed Ahmed and Mohammed Naeem Ahmed pleaded guilty to a number of offences contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, in that they collected or made a record of information that was of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism by causing or permitting to be created on a variety of electronic devices over a number of dates. These included editions of Inspire Magazine, The Al-Qaeda Manual and The Anarchist's Cookbook.

In addition both brothers pleaded guilty that on or before 16 March 2012, they possessed a document containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, namely a a paper copy of the 'Al-Qaeda Manual'.

The brothers were sentenced on 25 September 2014. Mohammed Saeed Ahmed received 20 months' imprisonment concurrent for each offence suspended for 2 years. Mohammed Naeem Ahmed received 15 months' imprisonment concurrent for each offence suspended for 2 years.

Top of page

R v Runa Khan

On 31 July 2014 Runa Khan pleaded guilty to disseminating a terrorist publication contrary to section 2(1) and 2 (e) of the Terrorism Act 2006. On four occasions she transmitted electronically the contents of a terrorist publication, intending an effect of her conduct to be a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or intending an effect of her conduct to be the provision of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts, or being reckless as to whether her conduct would have such an effect. The material disseminated was as follows:

  • On 30 July 2013 she transmitted electronically the contents of a terrorist publication, by posting on Facebook a picture of a suicide vest with the words "Ishtishadee: sacrificing your life to benefit Islam" emblazoned across it
  • On 13 September 2013 she transmitted electronically the contents of a terrorist publication, by sending, to a person known to her as Abdur Rahman, a series of Facebook messages which contained details of a route from Turkey into Syria, and of a group which the recipient could join. Abdur Rahman was an undercover police officer.
  • On 18 September 2013 she transmitted electronically the contents of a terrorist publication, by posting on Facebook "Dear Sisters, If you love your sons your husbands and your brothers prove it by sending them to fight for the sake of Allah. Don't you want them to enter jannah without reckoning? Don't you want them to prepare for you a palace in jannah?"
  • On 19 September 2013 she transmitted electronically the contents of a terrorist publication, by posting on Facebook an article entitled "Sisters role in Jihad off the Battlefield'. This article was originally posted by a user called "Khalid Bin Waleed a Great Warrior's photo". When reposting it the defendant commented "Sisters this is excellent. Read it in sha Allah." At the bottom of the posting is a picture of a group of women in Islamic dress, holding rifles. The article sets out a detailed blueprint for "Raising Mujahid Children."

On 11 December 2014 Runa Khan was sentenced to a total of 5 years' and 3 months' imprisonment.

Top of page

R v Amal El-Wahabi

On 16 January 2014 a female was stopped at Heathrow airport as she was about to board a flight to Turkey. She was searched and found to have 20,000 euros, in large denomination notes, hidden in her clothing.

She initially stated this was to buy gold for her grandmother and then disclosed she had in fact been asked to take the money to Turkey on behalf of her friend, Amal El-Wahabi, in exchange for 1000 euros.

Amal El-Wahabi was arrested. She is married to a male who is in Syria. Following his departure he had maintained regular contact his wife using call and messaging services on mobile-phones and the internet. He had provided her with both Turkish and Syrian mobile phone numbers. The messages exchanged between the pair indicate that he was with jihadist fighters.

Further examination of messages revealed that the smuggling attempt had been instigated by Amal El-Wahabi's husband, and that Amal El-Wahabi had recruited her friend to assist with this.

Amal El-Wahabi was charged contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Following a trial that commenced in July 2014 she was convicted.

Amal El-Wahabi was the first British woman to be convicted of terror offences since the Syrian conflict began. On 13 November 2014 she was sentenced to 28 months' and seven days' imprisonment.

Top of page

R v Nasar Hussain Shah

On 2 August 2014, Nasar Shah attempted to board a Eurostar train at St Pancras International using a false passport. He was handed over to British Transport Police by officers of the French border police and was detained for the purposes of an examination under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 during which he attempted to maintain that he was the fictitious person detailed in the false passport, before officers were able to reveal his true identity through his fingerprints.

Nasar Shah was charged with possession of a false identity document contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Identity Documents Act 2011 and wilfully obstructing an examination under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 contrary to paragraph 18 (1)(c) of that schedule.

He pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court on 12 September 2014 to 18 months' imprisonment for the passport offence and 1 month's imprisonment concurrent for the schedule 7 offence.

Top of page

R v Andreas Pierides

Andrea Pierides was a 23-year-old Cypriot national who was studying in the UK at Southampton University. On 19 January 2014 he was seen on a train by a member of the public who became very concerned about the nature of the material he was viewing on his laptop. She was so concerned that she took two photographs of his computer screen with her mobile phone and subsequently informed the police. The member of the public describes the material she saw being viewed as including bomb making instructions.

Police identified the male on the train as Andreas Pierides.On 15 May 2014 he was arrested at Stansted Airport about to board a flight to Cyprus having passed through security and passport control. He had checked in one item of hold luggage which had been loaded onto the aircraft. The hold luggage was searched and found to contain a box marked 'Personal Distress Signals' manufactured by Pains Wessex. The flare box was opened and it was found to contain a yellow plastic container marked 'Mini Flare Mk8'. The box was marked as being flammable with the explosive sign displayed and contained eight maritime distress signals. Examination of his computer revealed that the document he had been reading on the train was an electronic edition of the Anarchist Cookbook Handbook and was found in full on his computer. This version includes details, amongst many other instructions, on how to make a letter bomb and how to make a calcium carbide bomb.

Andreas Pierdies was charged with possessing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism to contrary to Section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, namely an electronic version of the Anarchist Cookbook Handbook, and having a dangerous article at an aerodrome contrary to s4(1)(c) Aviation Security Act 1982, namely a box of eight maritime distress flares. He pleaded guilty to both offences and was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court to 20 months' imprisonment in total, suspended for two years.

Top of page

R v Ryan McGee

Police executed a search warrant at the Ryan McGee's address who at the time was a serving soldier based in Germany. Police discovered a number of items, which were considered to be component parts to make incendiary explosive devices (IEDs), a nail bomb and publications, including The Anarchist Cook Book, U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook and US Army Guerrilla Warfare Handbook.

Computers were seized and interrogated and their contents demonstrated that Ryan McGee had far right wing sympathies and mind set material as well as searches on how to make IEDs.

In his police interview he admitted interest in far right wing politics and making explosives but denied they were for terrorist purposes.

On 2 April 2014 he was charged with possession of a document (The Anarchist's Cook Book) for terrorist purposes, contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and making an improvised explosive device (IED),namely a 'nail bomb' contrary to section 4 Explosive Substances Act 1883.

He pleaded guilty on 28 November 2014 on the basis of what he had said in is police interview and was sentenced to 24 months' detention.

Top of page

R v Mashudur Choudhury

Ifthekar Jaman, who was from Portsmouth, left the UK in early 2013 and crossed in to Syria in May 2013. By October 2013 he was fighting for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). He later gained notoriety in November 2013 when he was interviewed on the BBC Newsnight programme about his participation in the conflict in Syria and support for ISIS.

In the autumn of 2013 Mashudur Choudhury, who was also from Portsmouth, engaged in conduct in preparation to give effect to his intention to participate in acts of terrorism by obtaining information about the availability of training for terrorism, arranging to travel to Syria to undertake such training, and travelling to Syria to commit acts of terrorism. He used a number of social media platforms to ask questions about the ongoing conflict in Syria, including to ask about weapons training and buying handguns, and to state his intention to become a martyr. He was in regular contact with Ifthekar Jaman.

On 8 October 2013 Mashudur Choudhury and five other men, also from the Portsmouth area, left the UK travelling to Turkey and then onwards to Syria. It had been arranged that Ifthekar Jaman would help the group cross the border into Syria.

Once in Syria the five men travelled onwards and have not returned to the UK. Their intention was to train and fight and to join the al-Qaida inspired groups fighting the government forces in Syria.

Once in Syria Mashudur Choudhury decided he wanted to return home and told people that he was ill and suffering from cancer. Despite being offered medical assistance he persuaded those he was with to help him return to Turkey. He was not suffering from cancer. This was a lie he had previously told his family and continued to use on a regular basis when it was convenient for him.

Through social media he became aware that he was being blamed for the group's travel to Syria. On 25 October 2013 he began writing a journal entry on his mobile phone, which was a deliberate attempt to provide a cover story to be used when he returned to the UK. The journal falsely stated that on 8 October 2013 he had accidentally bumped into the group at the airport, and that he had been trying to reach and help in a Syrian refugee camp. He provided a similar account to the police. However there were conversations on social media that demonstrated that he had travelled into Syria and intended to participate in the ongoing conflict.

On 25 October 2013 Mashudur Choudhury returned to the UK and was arrested and charged with an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. He pleaded not guilty and during the course of the trial, he explained that he had previously lied about having cancer, had lied to police about the purpose of his travel and had lied in the journal that he created, but that he did not intend to participate in act of terrorism.

On 20 May 2014 he was found guilty of one offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. He was sentenced on 5 December 2014 to four years' imprisonment and a notification period of 10 years. In addition the court ordered forfeiture of £1780, that he had in his possession when he returned to the UK and he was ordered to pay £120 Victim Surcharge.

Top of page