A man has been convicted of terrorism and weapons offences following an incident at the Israeli Embassy in west London.

Abdullah Albadri, 34, travelled across London to the embassy on 28 April 2025 wearing a red‑and‑white shemagh wrapped around his head and face and sunglasses, concealing his identity.  

Shortly before 6pm, he arrived outside the embassy and immediately attempted to climb the perimeter fence. He was detained within seconds by armed diplomatic protection officers before he could enter the grounds. Two knives were recovered from his clothing following arrest.

Prosecutors told the jury that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and planned. CCTV footage traced his movements across London over almost an hour, while digital evidence from his mobile phone showed repeated location searches for the Israeli Embassy in the days and hours leading up to the incident.

Further material recovered included handwritten notes described in court as a martyrdom note, written on the day of the incident.

He was convicted of preparation of terrorist acts and two offences of possession of a bladed article in a public place after a trial at the Old Bailey.

Bethan David, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Abdullah Albadri deliberately armed himself, concealed his identity and attempted to climb into a diplomatic site while carrying knives.  

“The evidence showed planning and preparation, and that his actions were driven by an intention to use violence to make a political statement. 
“Thanks to the swift actions of officers, no one was hurt, and today’s verdicts reflect the seriousness of what was prevented.”

Building the Case: Proving terrorist purpose

The prosecution case centered on intent. It was not disputed that Abdullah Albadri carried two knives, travelled to the Israeli Embassy, and attempted to gain entry by scaling the perimeter fence. The critical issue for the jury was why he carried out those actions.

Terrorism in law involves the use or threat of serious violence designed to influence a government, wherever that government may be, for the purpose of advancing a political, racial, religious or ideological cause. The CPS did not need to prove that violence occurred, but that the defendant intended to use or threaten serious violence and took concrete steps to give effect to that intention.

Prosecutors relied on the defendant’s deliberate choice of target, his conduct on arrival, the weapons he carried, the handwritten martyrdom note, digital material from his mobile phone, and words spoken before and after arrest to demonstrate that intent.

The CPS argued that the Israeli Embassy was deliberately selected as a symbolic target representing the Israeli state, and that the defendant intended to influence the Israeli government through the threat or use of violence. The jury accepted that case and returned guilty verdicts.