A north London man has been found guilty of various terrorism offences after collecting instruction manuals of how to create 3D-printed firearms.
Abdiwahid Abdulkadir Mohamed, 32, was a member of various extreme Islamist groups and was first stopped by counter-terrorism officers at Heathrow Airport in September 2022.
Officers questioned Mohamed and released him but kept the digital devices he had in his possession for closer examination.
As well as Telegram accounts showing his allegiance to extreme Islamist groups, the probe also showed a number of documents that appeared to be instructions on how to create and build 3D-printed firearms.
Officers found that he had set up a private channel, which was only accessible by his account, and that he was using the channel to send and then effectively store the documents without being saved directly to any of his own devices.
…
This was also examined and officers found further evidence of his extremist mind-set, and that he had also carried out a search for 3D printers on eBay.
He was charged with six counts of possessing documents likely to be useful for committing or preparing an act of terrorism and found guilty last week.
Insane, he’s committed no crimes, he just has instructions that I’m pretty sure are probably openly available on the internet.
It seems like one step above Thought-Crime. Research Crime or something.
Sounds like they assumed the worst based on some possibly credible links to terrorists. But this really begs the question of where to draw the line. Unspecific intent? What’s he gonna do?
Apart from several offences under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The fact that you’re defending what is parallel to thoughtcrime is wild
What is boundary of ‘useful for terrorism’ exactly? Viewing a Google street view of say the GCHQ building? Planewatchers taking photos near the tarmac? Amateur OSINT activities that require things like UXO, radar, or aircraft identification? Putting a video of your SO leaving for deployment on Facebook?
Adding the ‘reasonable excuse’ clause is a paltry fig leaf that just kicks the determination of criminality to the whims of a magistrate or CPS. We’ve seen weak terrorism charges used to stifle legitimate protest, even before the latest protest laws.
I don’t read it as such, more that they were pointing out that it is a crime.
Good or bad crime is irrelevant, “arrested for not a committing a crime” is incorrect.