A multi-award-winning King’s Counsel, Sultana Tafadar KC has an extensive, high-profile practice across counter terrorism and national security, criminal justice, human rights, public law, and public international law. Sultana advises and acts for individuals, States, NGOs, multinational corporations, and other national and international bodies, appearing in courts at all levels. With a proven track record, her legal services are delivered with precision & excellence.
In 2022, she achieved international recognition for breaking historic barriers as the first hijab-wearing Silk at the Criminal Bar of England & Wales, a milestone that underscored her role as both a leading advocate and a pioneer for greater diversity within the legal profession. She has featured in leading media platforms including BBC, Al Jazeera, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, and Harper’s Bazaar Arabia.
Counter Terrorism & National Security
Sultana Tafadar KC is widely recognised as one of the foremost practitioners in counter-terrorism and national security law. Her practice spans over two decades and reflects involvement across all major waves of terrorism litigation, from Al-Qaeda-related conspiracy cases, through foreign-fighter and ISIS-Syria-era prosecutions, far-right extremism, and current Palestine-related allegations. She has acted and advised in over 100 terrorism and national-security cases, ranging from the most serious conspiracy and attack-planning allegations to complex appellate, preventive and international matters.
Her cases regularly raise issues of exceptional gravity and sensitivity, combining criminal law, public law, human rights and public international law, and require engagement with complex geopolitical contexts, different armed groups, and evolving ideological, theological and threat profiles across multiple regions.
She is instructed at an early advisory stage by individuals, multi-national organisations, NGOs and State bodies seeking strategic guidance on terrorism-related risk, exposure and compliance. She is recognised for bringing strategic judgment and intellectual depth to this work, enabling her to test evidential narratives rigorously and advance principled arguments grounded in human rights and international legal standards.
Results & outcomes at this level are a defining feature of her practice. Across terrorism and national-security proceedings, she has secured acquittals in major conspiracy prosecutions, successful appeals in landmark and reported cases, sentence reductions on appeal, and favourable outcomes in long-running TPIM, parole and preventive proceedings.
Large-Scale Terrorist Conspiracies, Preparation for/ Commission of Terrorist Attacks & Serious Terrorist Violence
A central strand of Sultana’s practice concerns large-scale terrorist conspiracies, preparation for acts of terrorism involving death and/or serious violence, and high-harm terrorist attacks carried out in the UK and abroad. These cases commonly involve allegations of conspiracies to cause explosions, coordinated attack planning, and violence directed at civilian targets, requiring detailed scrutiny of covert surveillance, intelligence material, encrypted communications, digital evidence, and complex forensic analysis, alongside contested issues of intention, attribution, and risk.
Her work spans the full ideological spectrum of modern terrorism, including Al-Qaeda-influenced conspiracies, ISIS-inspired attack planning, foreign-linked terrorism, and far-right extremism. Illustrative cases include R v Brogan & Others, far-right attack planning against identified targets; R v Boular & Others, the first all-female ISIS-inspired terrorist cell dubbed the ‘Tea Party’, alleged to have prepared for terrorist violence; the ‘July 7th Bombings’ Trial resulting in an acquittal in retrial on conspiracy to cause explosions, arising from the attacks on the London transport system which killed 52 people; Inquiry arising from the London Bridge Terrorist attack, acting for a participant connected to one of the attackers; R v Kahar, the landmark authority providing guidance on terrorism sentencing; and R v Ziamani, beheading plot directed at a serving soldier at an army barracks, in which the sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal.
Across this category of work, Sultana has secured acquittals in major conspiracy cases, achieved significant appellate and sentencing outcomes, and consistently scrutinised the legal and evidential foundations of the most serious terrorism prosecutions.
Foreign-Fighter, Overseas Conduct, Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law
Sultana’s practice concerns foreign-fighter and conflict-linked terrorism, involving alleged overseas conduct, attempted and repeated travel to conflict zones, attendance at terrorist training camps, online and logistical support for armed groups, and disputes over the proper legal characterisation of conflict-related activity. Her work spans a wide range of conflicts and regions, including Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Ukraine and Russia, and reflects detailed knowledge of different armed groups, ideological movements and theatres of conflict.
Illustrative cases involving the application of terrorism law to conflict-related participation include R v S (2024), acquitted of allegations linked to multiple conflicts, including Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Russia and Ukraine; R v AK (2022), acquitted of allegations including categorisation of a foreign fighter and the involvement of Iran, Lebanon and Hizbollah in the Syrian conflict; R v C & Others (2015); acquitted of preparing to go to Syria to join ISIS; R v HA (2016), involving repeated attempts to travel to Syria and attendance at a ‘domestic’ terrorist training camp; R v J & Another (2016), attempts to join overseas jihadi activity, involving defendants who were the brothers of the ISIS “five-star jihadi” figure; R v MAB (2025), appeal against conviction and sentence relating to the design and construction of a drone intended for use in overseas attacks; SSHD v EB, a national-security case arising from Syria-related allegations addressed through the TPIM framework; and R v K (2015), defendant with terrorism convictions extradited from Hungary to the UK.
These cases engage extraterritorial jurisdiction, the attribution of conduct across borders, the use of intelligence and closed material, and the intersection between domestic terrorism legislation, armed conflict and international humanitarian law, often against a backdrop of evolving geopolitical context
Terrorism Expression, Proscription & Related Offences
Sultana’s practice includes a substantial body of work in terrorism cases arising from expression rather than violence, encompassing criminal prosecutions and regulatory proceedings under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and related allegations engaging freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion/ belief. She is one of the leading practitioners in this field and has been instructed in approximately 30 cases involving section 13 allegations, including those arising from some of the largest mass arrests for alleged terrorism-related expression in UK history.
Her work includes landmark and reported appellate authority shaping the interpretation of section 12, including R v Choudhary & Rahman [2016] EWCA Crim 61 and R v Choudhary & Rahman [2017] EWCA Crim 1606, which clarified the legal threshold for “inviting support” for a proscribed organisation and the balance between national security and Article 10 ECHR. She acted in R v AC & MR (2016), one of the earliest prosecutions for public endorsement of ISIS, which remains a reference point in this area.
Sultana has extensive experience representing professionals and students in disciplinary and regulatory matters arising from alleged extremist expression. Recent cases include GM (2024) and NS (2024), in which allegations under sections 12(1) and 12(1A) were dismissed; MH (2024), a university disciplinary matter engaging Articles 9 and 10 ECHR, which was dismissed; GY (2024–ongoing), involving similar allegations; and SN (2025), PT (2025) and TN (2025), regulatory complaints concerning alleged expressions relating to genocide and international crimes. She also provides strategic advice to NGOs, lawyers, protestors, filmmakers and artists on the lawful limits of legal and political advocacy within proscription regimes.
Preventive & Post-Sentence National Security Control, TPIMs, Parole, Closed Material & Family Proceedings
Sultana’s practice concerns the exercise of executive and judicial power in terrorism cases beyond conviction, including Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), parole and recall, Prevent-related litigation, radicalisation family proceedings, and inquests following terrorist attacks. This work involves the use of closed material, secret intelligence, special advocates and in-camera hearings, and raises acute issues concerning fairness, disclosure, proportionality and the limits of state power.
Her TPIM and national-security work includes EB v SSHD [2016] EWHC 1970, in which the court proceedings were conducted almost entirely in closed sessions; EB v SSHD [2016] EWHC 137 (Admin), concerning disclosure and appeal rights under section 16 of the TPIM regime; and SSHD v KG (2020–21), a TPIM case before the High Court involving the imposition and alleged breach of measures. Her parole and post-sentence practice includes R v C (2017), in which parole was granted following complex issues relating to alleged extremism, licence breach and recall; Uddin [2021] PBRA 58, a successful reconsideration application in which the Parole Board decision was quashed for procedural unfairness and irrationality; and R v MAS (2024), in which parole was granted to an offender convicted of multiple terrorism offences following extensive cross-examination of MAPPA and ERG+ assessment evidence; and Re C (2017), High Court Family Division proceedings where no finding so extremism were found after reliance on secret evidence.
Across this category, Sultana has secured the lifting or mitigation of restrictive measures, the grant of parole, successful challenges to unfair procedures, and rigorous judicial scrutiny of secret evidence and executive decision-making.
Material-Based Terrorism Offences: Publications, Manuals, Weapons, Digital Evidence & Emerging Technologies
Sultana’s practice concerns material-based terrorism offences, including s.2 (dissemination of terrorist publications), s.58 and s.57 (possession of material likely to be useful to terrorism/ in connection with terrorism) and related preparatory allegations, across both digital and physical evidence. Her cases have involved everything from terrorist manuals and propaganda to complex device seizures, encrypted material and expert-led analysis of firearms, explosives and emerging methods.
Illustrative cases include R v S (2024), unanimous acquittal on s.2 dissemination allegations involving a fitness manual, combat videos and foreign-fighter material; R v AM (2024), s.58 offences involving schematics for 3D-printed firearms, with conviction and sentence under appeal; R v IA (2018), the “WhatsApp Terrorist” case involving multiple dissemination counts and contested issues of intent and Article 10; R v MAS (2023), acquittal of five s.58 counts following detailed challenge to hi-tech and expert evidence; and R v WA, acquittal in a prosecution alleging preparation to blow up the BNP, involving scrutiny of explosive-related material and intent.
These matters frequently turn on digital forensics, metadata, scientific and technical expert evidence, and ideological attribution, and may engage sensitive national-security material, disclosure and fairness issues where intelligence features prominently. Outcomes in this area include acquittals, dismissals and the narrowing of prosecution theories, ensuring proportionate and lawful application of material-based terrorism legislation.
Public Law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights
Sultana is regularly instructed in public law and human rights matters engaging the limits of state power, particularly where national security, extremism, protest and post-sentence control intersect with civil liberties and Convention rights. This work frequently arises from terrorism and national-security cases, approached through a public law and constitutional lens, and involves scrutiny of the legality, proportionality and fairness of executive decision-making.
Her practice in this area includes challenges to decisions affecting liberty, expression, belief and procedural fairness; regulatory and disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged extremist or protest-related expression; and post-sentence and preventive measures subject to public law review. She is frequently instructed in cases where public authorities rely on national-security assessments, intelligence material or risk-based reasoning, requiring careful judicial scrutiny.
Sultana’s experience encompasses professional and university disciplinary proceedings, Parole Board and TPIM litigation, inquests, and family proceedings involving allegations of extremism or radicalisation, including matters engaging closed material and sensitive intelligence. In these contexts, she is regularly instructed to address proportionality, disclosure, procedural fairness, and the compatibility of executive action with Articles 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 ECHR.
Her domestic public law practice is closely integrated with her international human rights work, enabling her to engage authoritatively with cases that raise cross-border, comparative or international legal issues alongside domestic public law challenges, and to situate national-security decision-making within its broader international legal context.
Criminal Justice & Appellate
Sultana has extensive experience in complex, high-stakes criminal matters, including homicide, serious violence and large-scale conspiracies, frequently involving multi-handed proceedings, joint enterprise allegations and sophisticated evidential frameworks. These cases are typically factually and legally dense, and turn on contested issues of attribution, intention, credibility and risk assessment—skills that are directly transferable to matters involving corporate exposure and regulatory scrutiny.
Her work in this area involves intensive analysis of complex evidential material, including large volumes of digital, surveillance and communications evidence, reconstruction of events across multiple actors and locations, and the testing of narratives built on data-driven and intelligence-led material. She is regularly instructed where cases require forensic scrutiny of how evidence is gathered, interpreted and relied upon, and where early strategic decisions materially affect outcome.
Sultana is frequently instructed in cases involving organised activity, allegations of coordinated or commissioned conduct, and parallel criminal exposure, including matters arising from drugs, firearms and financial conspiracies. These cases often involve overlapping lines of responsibility, contested decision-making chains and reputational sensitivity, requiring disciplined case management and strategic clarity. A further strand of her practice concerns expert-heavy litigation, including the evaluation and challenge of scientific, technical and medical evidence, and the handling of proceedings where credibility, hostile witnesses and competing expert opinions are central. She has acted in high-profile cases involving leading experts and complex causation issues, bringing rigorous analysis to evidential reliability and proportionality.
Alongside this work, Sultana advises and represents multinational corporations and senior legal teams on matters at the intersection of criminal law, human rights and cross-border regulatory risk. She is instructed on issues including potential or inadvertent exposure to criminal liability, compliance with international legal obligations, and the management of parallel criminal, regulatory and reputational risk across multiple jurisdictions. Her advice is particularly sought where matters involve complex factual matrices, sensitive evidence, or interaction between domestic criminal law and international standards, and where clarity, discretion and senior judgment are essential.
Public International Law, International Criminal Law, & International Humanitarian Law
Sultana advises and represents States, non-governmental organisations and individuals on matters engaging public international law, international criminal law and international humanitarian law. Her work focuses on accountability for serious violations of international law, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of the laws of armed conflict, before domestic courts and international forums.
She is regularly instructed by State parties on issues of state responsibility and individual criminal liability, including the investigation and prosecution of international crimes through international mechanisms and domestic proceedings based on universal jurisdiction. Her advisory work has included matters concerning referrals to international criminal jurisdictions; the application of the Genocide Convention; requests for provisional measures; and the assessment of violations of international humanitarian law during ongoing armed conflict, including questions surrounding the applicability of self-defence.
A significant strand of her practice concerns the interaction between international legal obligations and domestic legal systems. This includes advising on the potential criminal and human rights liability of corporations operating overseas; the development and implementation of international criminal law frameworks; the compatibility of domestic legislation with international instruments such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and advising on criminal evidence and procedure in common law jurisdictions in the context of high-profile international trials.
She has extensive experience working with international human rights organisations on conflict-related accountability and rule-of-law issues. Her work has included investigation and intervention in cases of arbitrary detention, torture and enforced disappearance; analysis of post-conflict legal systems; and advising on the international legal consequences of amnesties for grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. This experience underpins her ability to engage authoritatively with complex international disputes and accountability processes across multiple jurisdictions.
International Human Rights Law
Sultana represents individuals and organisations in treaty-based and regional human rights proceedings, including before the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council. She has particular expertise in cases engaging freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression and protest (Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR), as well as the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial (Articles 5 and 6). Her work engages issues of equality, minority rights, judicial independence and proportionality, and sits at the intersection of human rights law, public law and international legal accountability.
A significant strand of her current practice concerns Asmeta v France, arising from the prohibition on female Muslim lawyers wearing the hijab in French courts. She acts before the UN Human Rights Committee and multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, including those on freedom of religion or belief, minority issues, racism and discrimination, judicial independence and privacy. She has also represented the applicant before the European Court of Human Rights, challenging the decision of the Cour de Cassation upholding the ban and raising alleged violations of Articles 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14 ECHR.
Her work includes advisory and litigation before regional and international bodies in cases concerning detention, parole, fair-trial guarantees and cross-border enforcement. This includes advising on applications to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of women prisoners in Chechnya challenging parole refusals; proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seeking precautionary measures for journalists at risk; and representing individuals subject to Interpol Red Notices. She is instructed in matters requiring strategic use of international human rights mechanisms, coordination between domestic and international proceedings, and rigorous analysis of state justifications for restrictions on fundamental rights.
Justice Reform, Strategic Litigation & Legal Empowerment
Sultana combines courtroom advocacy with structural justice reform, working across jurisdictions to align domestic legal frameworks with international human rights standards and to address systemic barriers to justice, particularly affecting women, girls and marginalised communities. Her reform work is grounded in litigation and advisory practice, and is directed towards achieving durable institutional change rather than isolated outcomes.
She is directly involved in law reform initiatives, including the development of model laws, legal provisions and policy frameworks designed to address inequality, strengthen accountability and improve access to justice. Through her international advisory work, she provides strategic guidance on human rights compliance, counter-terrorism and national security frameworks, transitional justice and discriminatory law reform, advising States, institutions and organisations on aligning domestic systems with international legal obligations.
A significant strand of this work is her role in establishing and leading the Girls Human Rights Hub – Legal Empowerment Network (GHRH-LEN), a specialist initiative focused on addressing structural justice gaps affecting girls and young women through strategic litigation, legal empowerment and systemic reform. Through GHRH-LEN, she works with lawyers, civil society actors and institutions across multiple jurisdictions to develop legally rigorous, context-specific reform tools capable of operating within domestic justice systems.
Sultana also undertakes public interest litigation and strategic appeals intended to clarify legal standards, expose structural deficiencies and catalyse institutional reform. In parallel, she contributes to capacity-building initiatives, training lawyers, activists and organisations to embed reform strategies that are contextually grounded, legally robust and operationally sustainable, ensuring that reform extends beyond individual cases.
Strategic Legal Consulting
Alongside her courtroom practice, Sultana provides discreet, high-level strategic consulting to law firms, arbitral teams and in-house legal departments handling complex, sensitive or high-value disputes. Drawing on over two decades of experience in terrorism, national security, human rights and serious criminal litigation, she is instructed to provide strategic support at critical stages of proceedings.
Her consulting work focuses on case theory development, strategic positioning, and forensic evidential analysis, particularly in matters involving voluminous documentary records, expert evidence, confidential or sensitive material, and cross-border factual matrices. She advises on the structuring and sequencing of arguments, the testing of evidential reliability, and the management of legal, commercial and reputational risk.
While rooted in her core public law and criminal practice, this work is increasingly sought in arbitration and complex commercial disputes, including investor–state arbitration, commercial and financial disputes, sanctions-related matters, and proceedings involving parallel civil, criminal or regulatory exposure. In these contexts, she is instructed to bring clarity of strategy, disciplined evidential scrutiny and senior judgment to disputes where outcomes turn on credibility, expert analysis and the coherence of the overall case narrative.
A substantial strand of this work involves shadow counsel support, including strategic review of pleadings, memorials and written submissions; cross-examination strategy for fact and expert witnesses; and preparation of witnesses giving evidence under intense scrutiny. Her experience in handling intelligence-led and high-stakes cases equips her to address issues of confidentiality, procedural fairness and evidential integrity that frequently arise in international arbitration and high-value commercial litigation. This advisory work enables legal teams to draw on Sultana’s hallmark analytical precision, forensic judgment and strategic foresight, ensuring disputes are framed with discipline, authority and persuasive force across both litigation and arbitral forums.
Sultana has acted in some of the most complex and high-profile terrorism cases before the criminal courts, High Court and appellate courts. Her work spans proscription, domestic terrorism, foreign fighters, TPIMs, terrorism financing, Prevent, and parole proceedings. Some of the high-profile cases she has acted in include:
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.
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.
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.
Appeal against conviction and sentence for preparation for acts of terrorism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Allegation of funding terrorism, providing training to a terrorist organisation and possession of time likely to be useful for the purposes of terrorism.
21 counts of breach of notification requirements by a terrorist offender.
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.
Advised in relation to Parole Board hearing for terrorism convictions.
– 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charged with possession of items likely to be useful for terrorist purposes.
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.
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.
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.
Advice on civil claim arising out of unlawful and discriminatory application of counter terrorism Prevent policy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Application in relation to Section 16 appeal of Terrorism Prevention & Investigation Measures and disclosure in a case involving in-camera material.
Seizure of cash under POCA in relation to suspicion of terrorism. Issues relating to illegality of seizure and admissibility of evidence.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Counter-terrorism prosecution for grievous bodily harm against a religious education teacher. Pleaded guilty. Attracted national press.
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).
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.
Sultana’s practice includes wide-ranging constitutional challenges at the intersection of human rights and national security. She regularly acts in inquests, inquiries, Prevent-related litigation, and closed material proceedings. Some of her cases include:
Advised on protest-related matters, specifically on when expressions of support could cross the threshold to constitute an offence under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This advisory work required detailed analysis of the statutory provisions, the application of counter-terrorism legislation in the context of protest activity, and the balance between freedom of expression and public order considerations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Parole Board hearing in relation to terrorism convictions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Advice on civil claim arising out of unlawful and discriminatory application of counter terrorism Prevent policy.
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. Attracted national press. Significant case.
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.
High Court Proceedings, Family Division involving allegations of extremism. Consideration of evidence related to acquittal of terrorism allegations in criminal proceedings; evidence of ‘associations’ and other conduct; and evidence related to radicalisation. Unusually, secret evidence was heard in this case. No findings of extremism were made.
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.
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.
Application in relation to Section 16 appeal of Terrorism Prevention & Investigation Measures and disclosure in a case involving in-camera material.
Seizure of cash under POCA in relation to suspicion of terrorism. Issues relating to illegality of seizure and admissibility of evidence.
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.
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.
Was standing Counsel for the renowned Parliament Square protestor for several years for Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 and public order offences.
Sultana has a substantial trial and appellate practice in terrorism, homicide, and white-collar crime, with frequent appearances in the Court of Appeal. Her cases often turn on complex evidential and expert issues. Some of the cases she has acted in include:
Appeal against conviction and sentence for preparation for acts of terrorism.
Allegation of funding terrorism, providing training to a terrorist organisation and possession of time likely to be useful for the purposes of terrorism.
21 counts of breach of notification requirements by a terrorist offender.
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.
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.
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. Proceedings are ongoing. (2025- ongoing)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charged with possession of items likely to be useful for terrorist purposes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Counter-terrorism prosecution for grievous bodily harm against a religious education teacher. Pleaded guilty. Attracted national press.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appeal against sentence. Reduced. Possession of sawn-off shotgun, 46 rounds of expanding ammunition & 29 rounds of ammunition in the context of gangs. Sentence reduced.
Sentence reduced. Junior Counsel representing Sayed Al-Haddad who was involved in disturbances during the Gaza Protests in London in January 2009. Attracted national press. Sentence reduced.
Undue pressure and the appropriate circumstances in which to give a Watson Direction.
Joint enterprise murder in the context of a drugs dispute. Involved CCTV evidence that purportedly captured the incident whereby the victim was stabbed to death. Extensive use of mobile phone evidence.
Joint enterprise murder involving ‘gang members’ alleged to have been involved in a gang turf-war. Involved a reconstruction of the journey to the scene of the murder using CCTV and other footage.
Joint enterprise murder involving a car crash whereby victim was chased and stabbed. Defendant left the jurisdiction and later returned to face trial. Involved CCTV evidence, scientific evidence as well as evidence from witnesses at the scene.
Defendant accused of drugs offences in the context of a multi-handed case involving conspiracy to murder; conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger lives; conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm. Involved extensive cell site & phone evidence.
Attempted Murder on a joint enterprise basis involving gangs using machetes. Extensive CCTV evidence showed the incident unfolding and captured nine stab wounds to the victim being inflicted.
Murder involving shooting and the hiring of hit-men in the context of a drugs debt. Extensive cell-site and CCTV evidence.
High profile conspiracy to murder where defendant was accused of commissioning hit-men to assassinate the victim after a long-running feud.
Multi-handed case involving firearms, drugs and money laundering in the context of gang-related violence and allegations of ‘set-up’ by Flying Squad officers.
Retrial for manslaughter having been acquitted of murder in drugs ‘turf war’. Cut-throat defence involving hostile witnesses.
High profile case involving a single punch manslaughter of brother of England footballer. Evidence involved complex neurological and medical evidence given by numerous prominent medical experts.
Sultana advises and represents States, NGOs, and individuals in matters concerning genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws of armed conflict before domestic and international courts. She advises and represents state parties and organisations on matters including:
Case concerning referral of complaints to the International Criminal Courts and use of domestic Universal Jurisdiction for the prosecution of these offences.
Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Domestic criminal liabilities for breaches of international law and human rights obligations of companies operating on State’s territories.
Advising on violations during an ongoing armed conflict and issues surrounding the applicability of self-defence.
Contributed to Report adopted by five UN Special Rapporteurs and submitted to the UN Human Rights Council. Focused on the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights on secret renditions.
(in relation to a high-profile trial in Africa). Focused on defendants’ right to silence upon arrest, questioning and interview and whether, and to what extent, adverse inferences could be drawn.
Work included investigation and intervention in ‘urgent action’ cases of arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and disappearances. Projects included the War on Terror, the Darfur Crisis, violence against women and children in armed conflict.
Worked on law & order issues relating to post conflict Iraq; analysing the Iraqi Constitution, the Penal Code, and the justice system in relation to international human rights and humanitarian law. Assisted in drafting recommendations to the Coalition Provisional Authority in relation to extra-territorial application of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and the Human Rights Act (1998).
Advice on the granting of blanket and specific amnesties for grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Considered cases before UN complaints mechanisms, European Court of Human Rights, the African Commission, and Universal Jurisdiction provisions of states.
Sultana has extensive experience acting in matters before the European Court of Human Rights, UN treaty bodies, and UN Special Procedures. Her cases often concern freedom of religion, expression, protest, liberty, and fair trial rights. Her notable cases include:
Asmeta v France, concerning the violations of the various rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). (2023-Ongoing)
Asmeta v France, concerning the violation of the right to freedom of religion as a result of a hijab ban on female Muslim lawyers in France. (2023-Ongoing)
Asmeta v France, concerning the right to be free from discrimination. (2023-Ongoing)
Asmeta v France, concerning a violation of the right of minorities to enjoy their culture and practise their religion, as a result of the imposition of the hijab ban. (2023-Ongoing)
Asmeta v France, concerning the impact of the hijab ban on female Muslim lawyers who, therefore, cannot exercise independence from the State. (2023-Ongoing)
Asmeta v France, concerning a violation her right to bodily integrity by imposing a hijab ban on female Muslim lawyers. (2023-Ongoing)
Challenging the decision of the French Cour de Cassation (the highest court of appeal in France) on 2 March 2022, that endorsed a ban by the Lille Bar Council that prohibits French lawyers wearing the hijab or other markers of faith in court. The Cour de Cassation said the ban was necessary to ensure the ‘independence of lawyers’, the ‘equality of citizens’, and the ‘right to a fair trial’. The application against France at the European Court of Human Rights, assert violations of Articles 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Advice on application on behalf of women prisoners in Chechnya who were refused parole and consideration of caselaw under Article 5, 6 and 8 to challenge the decisions. European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).
Advice in case requesting precautionary measures for journalist breaking news of assassination of a special prosecutor investigating the President of Argentina. Latin American Centre for Human Rights (CLADH).
Application for suspension of Interpol Red Notice of British national in the Middle East, subjected to an arrest warrant, imprisonment, frozen assets, travel ban and extradition request. Fair Trials International.
On 4th December Sultana Tafadar KC, Barrister, Counter Terrorism & National Security Specialist from No5 Barristers Chambers, Simon Crowther, Legal Adviser, Amnesty International and Lex Korte,…
No5 is pleased to announce that twelve members have been listed in the 2025 Pro Bono Recognition List. Now in its second year, the list…
Sultana is the
Sultana holds a number of national and international human rights-related appointments, including
On 4th December Sultana Tafadar KC, Barrister, Counter Terrorism & National Security Specialist from No5 Barristers Chambers, Simon Crowther, Legal Adviser, Amnesty International and Lex Korte,…
No5 is pleased to announce that twelve members have been listed in the 2025 Pro Bono Recognition List. Now in its second year, the list…
