On Friday 3rd March, four men, initially unnamed, two aged 18 and two aged 19, were arrested at the University of Bradford's halls of residence and environs. The Guardian reported that "the men were arrested on suspicion of the commissioning, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". On 8th March, The Yorkshire Post in a story headlined 'Muslim students arrested in terror swoop' indicated that the arrestees were of "Pakistani origin" and provided the following further details: "The police are focusing their investigation on whether the group held radical extremist views....One of the men was part-way through a forensics course at the university while another one of the suspects studied pharmaceuticals...another three Bradford University students on the periphery of the group were also arrested but they were released without charge last night". By 9th March, news reports indicated that one of the four had been released, and provided the names of two individuals who were charged: Irfan Raja from London and Awaab Iqbal from Bradford.
On 26th July 2007 The Daily Telegraph reported that "Raja and three others were found guilty of possessing articles useful for terrorism after a three-month trial at the Old Bailey...Officers found a 'profusion of Islamic propaganda' on the schoolboy's computer which showed he had been talking to Bradford University students in a chatroom. Raja's family managed to contact him on his mobile phone and persuaded him to telephone them from a phone box in Manchester. His distraught mother went on a hunger strike until Raja agreed to return home. 'Irfan Raja was not as firm in his purpose as he hoped he would be, and as the people in Bradford hoped he would be,' said Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting. He had become involved with a group of radical first-year students who would allegedly meet at a student house in Bradford. Raja had been introduced to Aitzaz Zafar, 20, from Rochdale, Lancs, over the internet by a 17-year-old student called Ali, from New Jersey, who was planning to join them. The court heard how Zafar and Akbar Butt, 19, from Southall, West London, discussed travel arrangements over the internet with a contact called "Imran" in Lahore, Pakistan. Butt used a computer in Bradford University library to plan a trip to a training camp on Pakistan's North-West Frontier. But Raja was arrested when he went home on February 26 and counter-terrorism police soon rounded up the Bradford ring, which also included Usman Ahmed Malik, 21, from Wolverhampton, West Midlands. During raids on their homes officers found material on their computers which included al-Qa'eda manuals, speeches by Osama bin Laden and justifications for suicide bombings. The other members of the gang denied plotting to train for jihad. The defendants, who had spent much of the trial laughing and giggling together, looked shocked as the verdicts were announced".
The convictions were the first of their kind under section 57 of the Terrorism Act, relating to possessing articles for terrorist purposes.
David Livingstone, an associate fellow in the international security programme at Chatham House, is reported by the Guardian [27th July] to have stated that "instead of arresting individuals who accessed material which was widely available on the internet, liberal societies should engage in a competitive battle on the world wide web". Livingstone, who had acted as an expert for the defence also noted that there was no evidence the five planned to instigate a terrorist attack. Instead they were engaged in "mischievous" activity. "If you are going to pursue every case of mischief you are going to end up with a very jammed-up criminal justice system and you will certainly have to build more prisons".
Raja was given two years' youth detention, Zafar and Iqbal three years' detention, Malik three years' jail and Butt 27 months' detention. On 13th March 2007, following an appeal, the original conviction was deemed unsound. The Guardian noted, "The men had their convictions quashed by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, who was sitting with two other judges. Phillips, who ordered their release, said there was no evidence they intended to use extremist Islamist material found on their computers for terrorism...'We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury, whether by the prosecution or the Recorder, that the case that the appellants had to face was that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts. We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case."
Lord Phillips added: "The five had been convicted of possessing articles for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, contrary to section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We have concluded that, if section 57 is to have the certainty of meaning that the law requires, it must be interpreted in a way that requires a direct connection between the object possessed and the act of terrorism."
Imran Khan, solicitor for one of the defendents observed that the men had been prosecuted for a 'thought crime': "Young Muslim men before this judgement could have been prosecuted simply for simply looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes...My client is over the moon. He says it is surreal, and he cannot see why he has spent the last two years in prison for looking at material which he had no intention of using for terrorism." Solicitor Saghir Hussein, who was defending another defendent stated: "This is a landmark judgment in a test case over the innocent possession of materials, including books and speech, and the court has finally agreed that this is in no way connected to terrorism. It was very difficult in the current climate for any jury to decide on anything apart from conviction.
The BBC reported that according to the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, the government's
"knee-jerk drafting" of new terrorism offences had led to confusion on the part of prosecutors: "Ministers need to be more cautious when drafting new offences and more effective in enforcing old ones."
Raja was given two years' youth detention, Zafar and Iqbal three years' detention, Malik three years' jail and Butt 27 months' detention. They appealed, which was upheld, and they were freed on 13th February 2008. At the time the Crown Prosecution indicated that it was considering an appeal to the House of Lords. However on 20th February, the CPS stated that it would not do so because it did "not see any necessity to clarify a point of law".