Counter Terrorism & National Security

Notable Counter Terrorism & National Security Cases

Leading in 30 cases involving section 13 Terrorism Act 2000 (2026)

Allegations of displaying articles in support of a proscribed organisation, raising complex issues of symbolism, intent, contextual meaning, and political expression, frequently engaging Article 10 ECHR arguments.

R v AB (2025 – Ongoing)

Appeal against conviction and sentence for preparation of acts of terrorism (Section 5, Terrorism Act 2000) of a phd student who was accused of having built a drone designed to deliver a warhead or chemical weapon for Islamic State. Received a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 20 years imprisonment. Attracted national press.

R v AM (2025 - Ongoing)

Appeal against conviction and sentence of six counts of possession of material likely to be useful for purposes of terrorism (Section 58, Terrorism Act 2000). The documents relate to 3D printing of firearms. Attracted national press.

R v B & Others (2025 - Ongoing)

Appeal against conviction and sentence for preparation for acts of terrorism.

Advisory work for an international human rights organisation (2025).

Provided a series of specialist legal advices on the scope and limits of section 12 & 13 Terrorism Act 2000 following the proscription of a political organisation. The advice focused on the distinction between unlawful support and legitimate legal advocacy, political expression, and human rights-compliant civil society engagement, including analysis of evidential thresholds, mens rea, Article 10 ECHR protections, and risk management for advocacy activity.

Advice to a charity on intervention in judicial review proceedings (2025)

Advised a UK-based charity on intervening in judicial review proceedings challenging a proscription decision, including issues of standing, scope of intervention, admissibility of evidence, and the framing of submissions on proportionality, necessity, and freedom of expression under domestic and international law.

Strategic advice to charity on section 12 exposure (2025).

Provided targeted advice on criminal liability risks under section 12 arising from public statements, campaigning activity, events, and online engagement, with guidance on governance, communications strategy, and compliance with counter-terrorism legislation.

Advisory work on parameter of section 12 (2025).

Advised filmmakers, artists, writers and other creatives on the lawful parameters of section 12, including the depiction, critique, and contextual presentation of proscribed organisations within artistic, documentary, and fictional works.

AB (2025)

Advised legal team representing activist charged on two counts of inviting support for a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1)(a) of the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002. The case raises complex issues concerning freedom of expression and the scope of terrorism offences in a different jurisdictional context.

R v Y (2025)

Allegation of funding terrorism, providing training to a terrorist organisation and possession of time likely to be useful for the purposes of terrorism.

R v NK (2025 - Ongoing)

21 counts of breach of notification requirements by a terrorist offender.

R v B & Others (2025 - Ongoing)

Preparation of acts of terrorism (Section 5, Terrorism Act 2006) and possession of items likely to be useful for purposes of terrorism (Section 58, Terrorism Act 2000). Allegations that the Defendant, along with others, took steps to carry out attack/s. The particulars of the offence were that the Defendant had a large arsenal of weapons at his home including firearms; that he had shared extreme right wing material and joined extremist chat forums; that he shared and exchanged information on making molotovs, explosive substances and firearms; that a 3D print gun was made; that a chat group was created and members were recruited to carry out acts of terrorism; and that a location/s and target/s had been identified. The case involved evidence relating to: (i) ‘prepping, survivalism and bushcraft’; (ii) Mindset material; (iii) the conflict between Russia v Ukraine; (iv) extensive hi-tech evidence from the seizure of devices; (v) expert evidence relating to firearms and explosives; (vi) medical evidence; and (vii) evidence relating to undercover police officers and MI5 operative. Attracted national press.

R v ZK (2025)

Advised in relation to Parole Board hearing for terrorism convictions.

R v S (2024)

– S, a young man of good character, who was remanded into custody for over 14 months, was unanimously acquitted of three terrorism charges after 4 hours of jury deliberation, following a 3-week trial at Winchester Crown Court. He had faced three counts of disseminating terrorist publications (Section 2, Terrorism Act 2006) over social media between February and May 2023. The Crown alleged that S had deliberately used social media to encourage acts of terrorism and provide assistance in the commission of acts of terrorism through the dissemination of a terrorist fitness manual, videos of unidentified Muslim fighters in combat glorifying martyrdom and a video of a Muslim foreign fighter calling on others to join with a view of encouraging Muslims to fight. Unanimous acquittal of all counts.

The trial involved in depth examination of several key issues including: (i) Geopolitical and historical issues around the legitimacy of conflicts in Afghanistan (1980s), Bosnia & Chechnya (1990s) and Ukraine (Present); (ii) The history and legitimacy of the mujahideen and Muslim foreign fighters across these conflicts; (iii) Western support in these conflicts/ proxy wars against Russia and the commission of human rights atrocities in these conflicts; (iv) Issues around Islamic law and the rules of jihad regulating the conduct of foreign fighters engaging in combat to protect civilian lives in those conflicts; (v) Cultural and linguistic issues including the use of nasheeds and Quranic verses; the marginalisation of young Muslim men post 9/11; as well as the impact of Islamophobia and surveillance of Muslim communities; (vi) Legal arguments around admissibility evidence and on the definition of a terrorist publication under s2 of the Terrorism Act 2006; (vii) Extensive alleged “mindset” evidence suggesting that SS had been radicalised online by anonymous ISIS and Al-Qaeda supporters through messages, nasheeds, documentaries, voice notes and internet searches; (viii) Reliance on “high tech” evidence to infer “mindset”. The Defence instructed 5 experts to deal with these issues. Attracted national press.

M & Others (2025)

GM (2024)

Acted for a professional in disciplinary proceedings arising from social media posts alleged to contravene sections 12(1) and 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, on the basis that they amounted to, or could be perceived as amounting to, support for a proscribed organisation. Following written submissions, the allegations were dismissed without proceeding to a full hearing.

NS (2024)

Represented a professional before a regulatory body in proceedings brought under sections 12(1) and 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, where social media posts were alleged to amount to support for a proscribed organisation. The case was successfully disposed of at the submissions stage, with the allegations dismissed in their entirety.

GY (2024 - ongoing)

Currently instructed in regulatory proceedings concerning social media posts alleged to contravene sections 12(1) and 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, and further alleged to constitute malicious communications. The tribunal is presently considering submissions and the matter remains ongoing.

MH (2024)

Represented a student before a university disciplinary panel in proceedings arising from social media posts alleged to amount to religiously-sensitive misconduct. The case engaged complex issues of freedom of religion and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following submissions before the panel, the allegations were dismissed.

SN (2025)

Advised in a professional regulatory complaint concerning an individual alleged to have expressed support for acts amounting to genocide. The matter raised issues of professional conduct, the boundaries of free expression, and the responsibilities of legal professionals in relation to statements touching upon international crimes.

PT (2025)

Advised in a regulatory complaint against an individual alleged to have made public statements supportive of genocide. The case engaged questions of whether such expressions could be considered contrary to professional standards and required careful consideration of the balance between freedom of expression and the integrity of the profession.

TN (2025)

Acted in a professional regulatory complaint concerning commentary alleged to amount to support for genocide. The matter involved complex issues at the intersection of international criminal law, human rights, and the regulatory duties of legal professionals.

R v MAS (2024)

Parole granted for offender convicted of 3 counts of possession of items likely to be useful for the purposes of terrorism. Released on licence following a successful parole hearing. Cross examination of Prison Offender Manager, ERG+22 report writer, Community Offender Manager. Expert evidence called on rehabilitative work and reintegration. Parole granted.

R v TA (2024)

Written advice on sentence on conviction on two counts of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism, contrary to sections 38B(1)(a) and (b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to parity of sentence with co-defendants convicted of, amongst other offences, possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely acetone and hydrogen peroxide in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the possession was of a purpose connected to the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, contrary to Section 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Attracted national press. Defendant received a suspended sentence.

CD (2023)

Acted in providing an advisory opinion to a charity on the parameters of section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, concerning the scope of the offence of inviting or expressing support for a proscribed organisation. The opinion addressed the boundaries between legitimate charitable activity, freedom of expression, and potential criminal liability under counter-terrorism legislation.

R v AM (2023 – 2024)

Dissemination of terrorist publications. Defendant was convicted of six counts of possessing material likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism (Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000). The material indicted included six files that were schematics for the making of five 3D printed firearms and one firearm from conventional material. Expert evidence included (i) extensive hi-tech evidence; (ii) expert evidence on links between the extreme far right and the use of 3D printed firearms; (iii) expert evidence on Islamic language, theology and geopolitics. Attracted national press. Conviction and sentence currently under appeal.

R v AK (2023 – 2024)

Possession of terrorist publications. The Defendant, who had previously served a 12 year sentence for terrorism (from August 2008) was found guilty of one count of Possessing terrorist material, contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and three offences of Possessing an article for use in fraud, contrary to section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006, following a trial at Leeds Crown Court in November 2024. He was remanded ahead of trial after pleading guilty to two breaches of his Part 4 Terrorist Notification Order, under section 48 and 54(1)(a) of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 in February 2022. During the trial, an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal was made, challenging the trial judge’s decision to admit the Defendant’s convictions. The Defendant did not give evidence during his trial. Attracted national press.

R v AK (2024)

Interlocutory Appeal to the Court of Appeal of a ruling on the law and to the admissibility of evidence, namely bad character evidence, pursuant to s.31(3) CPIA 1996 made during a preparatory hearing. The Appellant faced a trial at Leeds Crown Court on a four-count indictment alleging possession of possession of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism contrary to s.58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and three counts of possession of articles for use in the course of or in connection to any fraud contrary to s.6 of the Fraud Act 2006. He had previous conviction/s for terrorism. Attracted national press.

R v MAS (2023)

On 14 March 2023, following a three-week trial, MAS was acquitted of 5 counts of possession of documents or records containing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism, contrary to section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. He faced a total of eight counts at trial. The three-week trial included detailed argument and examination on the following issues: (i) Extensive expert evidence uncovered flaws and inaccurate representation of hi-tech material seized from computers, (ii) mobile phones, and social media; (iii) Expert evidence on the Arabic language, history, geopolitics and theology; (iv) Extensive expert evidence on Autistic Spectrum Condition and its impact on the Defendant’s behaviour. Attracted national press. Acquittal of 5 counts of terrorism.

R v AK (2022)

KA, a young man of good character who had been remanded in custody for over a year awaiting trial, was acquitted of dissemination of three terrorist publications in May 2020 (Section 2, Terrorism Act 2006), and possession of a machete in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession was intended for a purpose connected with the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism (Section 57, Terrorism Act 2000) in October to November 2021. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of Not Guilty on all counts on the indictment in approximately 2 hours of deliberations. The Crown relied extensively on ‘mindset’ material to suggest KA had an ‘extremist’ mindset. This included reliance on videos, audios, nasheeds, social media messages and posts, and internet history, amongst others. The Crown suggested KA had been radicalised through exposure to ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other propaganda material. The Defence instructed technical experts to examine numerous seized devices, and an expert on culture, language, Islamic law, with experience of terrorist materials to assist. Unanimous acquittal of all counts.

The trial included detailed argument and examination on the following issues: (i) Extensive and successful legal arguments on ‘mindset’ material; (ii) The objective parameters of a terrorist publication under s. 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006; (iii) The change in burden and standard of proof in relation to s.57; (iv) Section 8 disclosure applications for evidence that may undermine the crown’s case and/or assist the defence; (v) The admissibility of expert opinion evidence on the subject of what may constitute a terrorist publication; (vi) Engagement of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights during an assessment of what constitutes a terrorist publication, and when assessing mindset material, including unpalatable speech; (vii) Geopolitical issues, including the background to the Syrian conflict and atrocities committed; the legitimacy of the Assad regime; whether specified militia groups in various parts of the world were religious or political in nature; (viii) Cultural and linguistic issues, including to what extent a passive prayer may be framed in the context of encouragement or inducement to commit acts of terrorism, significance of a Shahadah flag, and the use of certain Arabic terminology and their context dependent meaning; (ix) Theological issues, including examination of the belief system of various sects, types of Salafi and other Islamic groups, interpretation of verses of the Quran and Hadith, definition and scope of terms such as ‘khawarij’, and ‘takfir’, and the proper meaning of ‘jihad.’ Attracted national press.

Uddin [2021] PBRA 58

Successful application for reconsideration of a Parole Board decision in relation to terrorism convictions on the basis of irrationality and/or procedural unfairness. Applicant had not been informed of a parole hearing, was not given the opportunity to make representations and/or to challenge any submissions/evidence considered by the Board in opposition to his release. Application granted.

SSHD v KG (2020-21)

National Security case before the High Court involving the imposition of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM), including subsequent breaches of the measures. Further details of the case cannot be disclosed.

R v A (2019)

Charged with possession of items likely to be useful for terrorist purposes.

R v A (2019)

Charged with dissemination of terrorist publications (section 2) and possession of items likely to be useful for purpose of terrorism (section 58). Defended A at the Old Bailey in a complex terrorism case involving allegations of disseminating extremist material online. The prosecution alleged that A, along with a co-defendant, operated a website hosting speeches by a ‘hate’ cleric. The case involved detailed analysis of online activity, expert evidence on radicalisation, and issues of intent, context, and freedom of expression under the Terrorism Act 2006.

R v Boular [2019] EWCA Crim 798

Appeal against sentence for offences of preparing acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2006, s. 5. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to a single offence of preparing acts of terrorism and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 16 years. SB was convicted of two counts of the same offence and was sentenced to custody for life, with a minimum term of 13 years. Both renewed their applications for leave to appeal against their sentences. Attracted national press.

London Bridge Inquests (2019)

Inquest into the London Bridge/ Fishmonger Hall attack examined the events of the June 2017, where three attackers drove into pedestrians and then stabbed people in Borough Market, killing eight and injuring many more. The inquest concluded that all victims were unlawfully killed and highlighted critical failings in MI5 and police responses. The attackers were shot dead by police. Represented ex-wife of one of the attackers.

TC v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2019)

Advice on civil claim arising out of unlawful and discriminatory application of counter terrorism Prevent policy.

R v RB & Others (2018)

Defendant charged with conspiracy to murder and engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts, namely by carrying out knife attacks in Westminster Bridge. Part of first all-female cell dubbed ‘The Tea Party’. Pleaded guilty to section 5, Terrorism Act 2006, and received a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 16 years. Attracted national press.

R v IA (2018)

Defendant accused of 12 counts of dissemination of terrorist publications and 1 count of possessing a document likely to be useful to a person committing an act of terrorism. Dubbed the ‘WhatsApp Terrorist’, the case involved complex arguments around intent, freedom of expression, and the defendant’s claim that the material was accessed solely for research and curiosity purposes. Most of his sentence was served upon conviction as a result of an electronically monitored qualifying curfew on bail. Attracted national press.

R v Ali [2018] EWCA Crim 547; [2018] 1 WLR 6105

The Appellant was convicted of multiple terrorism offences, including dissemination of terrorist publications under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. The central issues on appeal involved the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the definition of a “terrorist publication” and the protection of the defendant’s rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguards freedom of expression. This case underscores the balance courts must maintain between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety, particularly in the context of counter-terrorism legislation. Attracted national press. Significant case.

R v C (2017)

Parole granted in a case relating to allegations of extremism and/or terrorism. Involved complex factual and legal issues surrounding breaches of license conditions and subsequent recall. Gave rise to a civil action against the police. Parole granted.

R v Choudhary & Rahman [2017] EWCA Crim 1606; [2017] 4 W.L.R. 204

Appeal against convictions and sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for inviting support for a proscribed organisation (ISIS), contrary to s.12(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. It was argued that the Appellant’s statements were protected by freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. The case clarified the legal threshold for “inviting support”. Attracted national press. Landmark Case.

R v Choudhary & Rahman [2016] EWCA Crim 61

Interlocutory appeal on the legal ingredients of section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as to what amounts to ‘inviting support for a proscribed organisation’, in this case, ISIS. It clarified the scope of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, particularly concerning the balance between freedom of expression and national security. It establishes that individuals can be convicted for inviting support for a terrorist organization even without direct incitement to violence, provided the invitation is made knowingly. The case has been cited in subsequent legal discussions and judgments concerning the limits of lawful expression and the definition of support for proscribed organizations. Attracted national press. Landmark case.

R v Kahar [2016] EWCA Crim 568

Landmark guideline case on sentences for Section 5 Terrorism Act 2006, preparation for acts of terrorism. The Court of Appeal addressed multiple appeals and an Attorney General’s reference and, in the absence of detailed sentencing guidelines for such offences, provided comprehensive guidance. Represented the Appellant, Ziamani, in the appeal. He was convicted under section 5 for preparing an act of terrorism, specifically plotting to behead a British soldier. He was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment, with a minimum term of 14 years and 8 months, plus a 5 year extended licence. His custodial sentence was reduced on appeal to 19 years. Attracted national press. Sentence reduced. Landmark case.

EB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1970

Landmark case contesting TPIM imposed by the Home Secretary. Involved consideration of highly sensitive national security evidence. SSHD created a new category of ‘in-camera’ evidence and the hearing was almost exclusively held in closed proceedings. Landmark case.

EB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 137 (Admin)

Application in relation to Section 16 appeal of Terrorism Prevention & Investigation Measures and disclosure in a case involving in-camera material.

R v C (2016)

Seizure of cash under POCA in relation to suspicion of terrorism. Issues relating to illegality of seizure and admissibility of evidence.

R v R & AC (2016)

Along with ‘hate preacher’ Anjum Choudhury, R was charged with inviting support for ISIS between June 29, 2014, and March 6, 2015. The prosecution presented evidence that both individuals made public statements endorsing ISIS and its self-declared caliphate, without condemning the group’s violent actions. One of the first prosecutions under this provision. Attracted national press. Landmark case.

R v HA & Another (2016)

Defendant accused of preparation of acts of terrorism in planning to go to Syria to join IS and disseminating terrorist publications. It was alleged that he travelled and tried to join ISIS in Syria, having training for battle at a paintballing centre alongside three other men linked to the group. Attracted national press.

R v C & Others (2015)

Interlocutory appeal of the legal ingredients of section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as to what amounts to ‘inviting support for a proscribed organisation ISIL’.

R v C & Others (2015)

High profile case where Defendant, along with two others, was acquitted of preparing for acts of terrorism, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. It was alleged that he, along with the others, planned to go to Syria to fight alongside ISIS. He was arrested with a co-defendant in the back of a lorry in Dover. The case involved the examination of extensive hi-tech material, social media evidence, ‘mindset’ evidence, evidence of ‘association’ and ideology, geopolitics of Syria and Iraq, and surveillance evidence. Attracted national press. Unanimous acquittal.

R v K (2015)

Extradition of Defendant from Hungary for breach of notification requirements post terrorism convictions. They were deported from Hungary after being found on a train headed for Bucharest, Romania, in November 2015.

R v J & Another (2015)

Charged with numerous counts of s.5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, preparation for acts of terrorism, amongst others, they were the brothers of the ‘five star jihadi’ who was killed in battle in Syria. The defence challenged the prosecution’s case on the basis of association, circumstantial evidence, and intent. Despite conviction, extensive mitigation was advanced. The Defendant received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment, to serve half in custody. Attracted national press. The judge explicitly declined to impose an extended sentence.

R v SH (2012)

Defendant accused of engaging in terrorism in Somalia. He was charged with 7 counts of fundraising and 4 counts of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism. Pleaded guilty. Attracted national press.

R v AH and Others (2011)

Counter-terrorism prosecution for grievous bodily harm against a religious education teacher. Pleaded guilty. Attracted national press.

R v Shakeel & Others (2008)

Landmark case where Defendants were acquitted of conspiracy to cause explosions with intent to endanger life in the 7/7 bombings of the London transport system. The Defendant was acquitted in the retrial of helping the bombers plan the 2005 attacks, following a complex and highly sensitive case involving extensive surveillance evidence, association with the perpetrators, and significant public scrutiny. The defence emphasised the absence of direct involvement, highlighting the distinction between past associations and criminal intent. This landmark case required careful handling of national security issues, historical context, and the rights of the accused in terrorism prosecutions. Attracted national press. Jury hung in first trial; acquittal in retrial (2009).

R v WA & Another (2008)

Successfully defended WA, an 18-year-old accused of plotting to target members of the British National Party in a high-profile terrorism trial at Leeds Crown Court. He was accused of possessing ‘bomb-making manuals’ and chemicals for the purpose of terrorism, to ‘blow up the BNP’, The defendant was acquitted of all three counts of possessing articles for a terrorist purpose, following a jury trial in which the defence challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of online material and intent. The case involved sensitive issues around political expression, adolescent curiosity, and digital evidence. Attracted national press. Unanimously acquitted of all three counts.