Men convicted of terror offences have appeal bid rejected

Luqmaan Ahmed and Kashif Riaz were convicted of encouraging terrorism and disseminating terrorist publications

Two men who 'encouraged terrorism' on Instagram when they were teenagers have had an appeal to overturn their convictions thrown out.

Luqmaan Ahmed and Kashif Riaz were found guilty of encouraging terrorism and disseminating terrorist publications.

Manchester Crown Court heard that the pair had published posts including 'distressing' images of child war victims in Syria on an account called 'thefightersofthetruth' and 'supporterofmujahideen' in 2018, and sent 'propaganda' videos made by 'armed militia' opposing the Assad regime between each other and to two other individuals.

Join our WhatsApp Top Stories and Breaking News group by clicking this link.

The court heard how the men, who were 16 and in Year 10 at the time, had become interested in the war in Syria following the Manchester Arena attack in 2017.

The teens had posted statements on an Instagram account that were 'likely to be understood' as 'direct or indirect encouragement to the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism' and of actions that 'endangered life'. They also sent videos to each other and another friend via Whatsapp that were described by prosecutors as 'terrorist publication'.

He said there was 'no question' of both defendant's young age at the time of the offences, but argued they had both intended to travel to Syria, and that 'that intention was in their mind when posting on Instagram'.

The pair were spared jail after a judge handed them community orders in December 2022. Judge Field KC said he had seen the pair 'grow up', and that they were 'not the same boys' who had initially come before his court.

Lawyers representing the pair at an appeal have now argued that their convictions should be quashed.

At a hearing at the Court of Appeal in London, Ahmed and Riaz, both now 22, sought leave to appeal against their convictions. The application had already been rejected by a single judge.

The pair renewed the appeals, which were heard before a panel of three senior judges - Lord Justice Edis, Mrs Justice Farbey and Her Honour Judge Moreland – at a hearing in December.

However, the judges said their grounds of appeal "are not arguable, and their convictions are not arguably unsafe" as they again rejected the application.

Kirsty Brimelow KC, on behalf of Ahmed, of Broom Lane, Levenshulme, argued that the judge in the trial had incorrectly concluded "there was sufficient evidence of terrorist intention for the jury to convict" him as well as that one video was "capable of being a terrorist publication". But the appeal judges disagreed and ruled that the trial judge's conclusion had been "impeccable" and was "not open to challenge".

Ms Brimelow KC also argued that the judge had been wrong to allow the trial to continue in breach of Articles 9 - freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 10 - freedom of expression - of the European Convention on Human Rights.

She said the "jury should have been directed that supporting someone else's objectionable, controversial or offensive opinion does not amount to a criminal offence" and that the failure to do so "was a disproportionate and unjustifiable violation" of Ahmed's rights.

However, the appeal judges said the submission had "no traction" and ruled that the trial judge "had the applicants' human rights in mind and his directions were sufficient to protect them".

Ms Brimelow KC also argued that Ahmed had not been afforded a fair trial, claiming that prosecutors "made prejudicial comments and observations to the jury".

Brenda Campbell KC, who represented Riaz, of Damien Street, Levenshulme, also raised concerns about the legal directions the judge had given to the jury during the trial. She said the judge's directions relating to evidence of Riaz's mindset had been "unfair and biased towards the prosecution".

Ms Campbell KC argued that "the prosecution case as advanced in closing was fundamentally different to the case set out in earlier stages of the proceedings in respect of Mr Riaz's intention to travel to Syria". She said the judge had "failed to recognise that difference and failed to provide an adequate safeguard in the form of a legal direction to protect the unfairness and prejudice that this caused".

However, the appeal judges ruled that "any assertion of unfairness or imbalance in the summing-up is unfounded". They dismissed the pair's arguments and refused the applications.