Crown offers no evidence against MM charged with Terror Plot to shoot and kill police officers and soldiers in Shepherds Bush, London.

This started out as a Firearm Case when MM was charged with possession of a firearm, silencer and ammunition along with one other and remanded in custody. 

The day before the preliminary hearing the case was moved to the Central Criminal Court but no reason given. 

MM was shortly arrested on charges of terrorism and taken to Southwark Police Station along with several others. 

For the first time the prosecution applied to the Judge to grant permission for post charge questioning – section 22 Counter Terrorism Act 2008.  The Crown wanting to question the procurement of the firearm, silencer and ammunition alongside the allegation of the intention of committing acts of terrorism, or assisting others to such such acts – section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Four days of intense interviewing then took place at the Police Station before 5 men were charged on Friday 17 October 2014 and appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court.

The Crown alleged that the group intended to shoot and kill police officers and soldiers.  They were following orders given by Abu Muhammed al-Adnani in a Fatwa (Islamic Ruling).  The Crown stating that all defendants had seen the Fatwa.  They had sourced a moped, handgun and silencer in order to carry out the plot.  They had used google street view mapping to carry out “hostile reconnaissance” of Shepherds Bush Police Station and TA barracks at White City. 

Secret communications had been carried out on mobile phones involving covert discussions in a coded language.

They were in possession of extreme jihadi material which included among other articles graphic images of the beheading of Steven Sotioff.  Also possession of Inspire Magazine Summer 2010 and Winter 1431.  

Interestingly, MM was in custody on the firearm charges when the “hostile reconnaissance” was taking place.  The Crown also alleged that images of police officers and PCSO’s were on mobile devices.  These turned out to be Ashley Inkz Prank Videos!

This was a case where the evidence was all served electronically.  The difficulty with working on such a large case where the page count exceeds 40,000 pages is the client having access to the material.  It took over 5 months to arrange a laptop for MM in prison.  Whilst the prison confirmed that MM could have an “access to justice laptop”, our client had to wait for one to become available.  Needless to say the timetable of the trial does not reflect the delays.  Our client could of course provide his own laptop, which must be purchased new in a sealed box – without internet connection and camera facilities.  You simply cannot comply with these requirements.  Once the laptop was finally issued the Crown then served another large tranche of material and of course our laptop was minus this material.  Thus began another struggle to get the laptop updated with the material. 

Who knows what the future will hold now that we are all expected to be working electronically on the digital case system.  Not only did our client have to wait several months for an “access to justice laptop” but even once the laptop was issued was only allowed to view the material by booking a room in the legal visit area. 

The matter was set down for a dismissal hearing which was eventually timetabled to start on the first day of trial (1 June 2015).  Managing not only MM’s expectations but also the family.  With no idea what the delay is one can only speculate.

Several ex parte PII applications then took place.  On the 10 June the judge had ordered that the material be served on the defence team of MM.  The Crown chose to offer no evidence. 

At the time this case was progressing through the criminal justice system there were further ISIS attacks happening around the globe.  Most notably Charlie Hedbo on the 7 January 2015.  This was just after the first tranche of material had been served for us.  Not only did we have to be mindful of the evidence against MM in this case and whether the alleged case had materialised in evidence but we also had to factor in whether an application for bail would be far too risky given the current public perception towards ISIS related attacks. 

Contact Lewis Nedas Expert Criminal Defence Lawyers

If you are facing similar allegations, contact our specialist Lawyers on 0207 387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.