Our client was a 19-year-old Austrian national who lived with his family in Vienna. His family had emigrated from Pakistan to Austria in 2008, and he spent part of his mid-teens living with an aunt in the UK.
On 22 August 2022, our client and his sister travelled from Vienna to London Stansted Airport for what the prosecution accepted was a purely social visit. At the airport, he was identified and selected for examination under Schedule 7, seemingly based solely on his appearance. His sister was allowed to continue her journey.
During the Schedule 7 procedure, officers described our client as compliant. On request, he provided the PIN for his iPhone. A subsequent examination of the device uncovered images suspected to be ISIS propaganda, leading to his arrest on suspicion of possessing terrorist material. He was later charged with possession of terrorist material with intent to encourage terrorism, or being reckless as to its encouragement.
The prosecution alleged that between the ages of 18 and 19, our client had shared extremist material on three occasions over six months with one individual and had been a member of WhatsApp and Telegram group chats where others expressed radical Islamist views.
However, the police traced and interviewed the other individual and decided against charging him. There was no suggestion that our client had been involved in acts of terrorism himself. The case relied entirely on the material found on his phone, which had been shared while he was in another jurisdiction.
We argued that our client, an immature teenager with an interest in world affairs, had shared content only with a friend of the same age, neither of whom had extremist ties. We contested whether the material even met the legal definition of terrorist content.
Our client was remanded in custody for four months before getting bail. During his 18 months on bail, he was subject to strict conditions, including a curfew, daily reporting, and prohibitions on working or studying under immigration rules. At his first trial, the jury was discharged due to him being unwell, delaying proceedings by a year. At his retrial, with the support of an intermediary, he gave evidence in his defence and was acquitted of all six counts.
Our client was represented by Senior Managing Solicitor, Ed Caute, assisted by Trainee Solicitor, Adam Iqbal, and Naeem Mian KC.
