Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ahmed Aweys [2025] EWHC 78 (Admin)

“1Serious Crime Prevention Orders (1) The High Court has the power to make an order if: (a) it is satisfied that a person has been involved in serious crime (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere); and (b) it has reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime in England and Wales.”

“(1) For the purposes of this Part, a serious crime prevention order is “terrorism-related” if the trigger offence is within subsection (3). (2) The “trigger offence”, in relation to a serious crime prevention order, is the serious offence referred to in section 2(1) or (4), 2A(1) or (4) or (as the case may be) 3(1) or (4) pursuant to which the court is satisfied that the person who is the subject of the order has been involved in serious crime. (3) A trigger offence is within this subsection if— (a) it falls within section 2(2)(a) or (5)(b)(i) by virtue of paragraph 2A of Schedule 1; (b) it falls within section 2A(2)(a) or (5)(b)(i) by virtue of paragraph 16BA of Schedule 1; (c) if falls within section 3(2)(a) or (5)(b)(i) by virtue of paragraph 18A of Schedule 1; or (d) in the case of any other trigger offence (whether or not specified, or within a description specified, in Schedule 1), it appears to the court that the offence— (i) is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism; or (ii) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.”

“9. ….. The order may be made if but only if the court has reasonable grounds to believe that an order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the defendant in serious crime (as defined in section 2 and Schedule 1) in England and Wales. It follows that the court, when considering making such an order, is concerned with future risk. There must be a real, or significant, risk (not a bare possibility) that the defendant will commit further serious offences (as defined in section 2 and Schedule 1) in England and Wales. 10. If an order is made, it may contain such provisions as the court considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the defendant in serious crime (as defined) in England and Wales. Unlike some statutory provisions for the making of preventive orders …., this one is not expressly couched in terms of necessity. But we doubt that the different form of words makes a significant difference in practice. It was common ground before us that the principles set out by this court in R v Mee [2004] 2Cr App R (S) 434, in the context of the similarly worded power to make travel restriction orders under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, apply equally to SCPOs. Such orders can be made only for the purpose for which the power was given by statute. And they must be proportionate. The necessity for orders to be proportionate also follows from the fact that they will almost inevitably engage article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They will satisfy the requirement in article 8(2) for the order to be made according to law, because they are made within a statutory structure, but, as that article is now understood, it requires further that they must be proportionate: see the authoritative expression in EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] AC 1159, para 7, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill, of the questions which arise under article 8: “(1) will the proposed [order] be an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for his private . . . life? (2) If so, will such interference have consequences of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of article 8? (3) If so, is such interference in accordance with the law? (4) If so, is such interference necessary in a democratic society in the interests of . . . the prevention of disorder or crime . . . ? (5) If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?”

“By August 2015, Mr Aweys was already expressing the view that ‘Allah had chosen them (the two missing brothers) to be part of blessed events’. On 31/10/2015 he sent an article to Mr Abu and Mr Munye, with Mr Aweys critiquing ‘any who don’t agree with “dawlah” (Daesh) methods including killing en-masse.’ On 09/11/ 2015 Mr Abu boasted about a burglary he committed, and Mr Aweys indicated ‘it is acceptable to steal from the Kuffr and the money should be used for the cause’. The following day Mr Aweys tells Mr Abu: ‘the biggest advantage that we have is we are embedded in their societies, we are the enemy within and they know not …’ On 10/02/2017 on Mr Aweys’ mothers’ (Khadija Jelani’s) device, Mr Aweys refers to the Somali president as a kuffr ‘who needs to be killed’. On 18/02/2017 he posted a link to a woman fighting Daesh with a comment ‘jahil (ignorant) tramp kafirah’. On 29/05/2017 he stated that ‘a war between muslims and disbelievers has begun’. On 23/08/2017 Mr Aweys indicates he wants to be a protector of the Quran ‘and be like Solo and Wail’ (his two deceased brothers). In a group chat on 27/11/2017 Mr Aweys said ‘Jihad will never let you down’. On 28/11/2017 Mr Aweys criticises Hay’at Tahir al-Sham when asked about them by Mr Munye, saying ‘they are pants as they don’t believe in fighting gaalada’. On 01/12/2017 Mr Aweys also took a leading role in the conversation discussing theft/fraud with Mr Munye, Mr Aweys said ‘he is entitled to take from the Kuffr’, to which Mr Munye agreed. In response to a link sent by Mr Munye he said on 23/12/2017: ‘breath-taking...mashing up pagans’. On 27/12/2017 they agreed martyrdom is "a blessing". On 02/01/2018 they asked about their brothers in Syria and how they can help. In a chat between Mr Munye, Mr Aweys and Mr Abu, Mr Aweys said that ‘plots are being foiled by snitches’. Other chats talk of the injustice of jailing those with Daesh material. On 19/01/2018 Mr Aweys sent a link to Ms Aweys to some Anwar Al-Awlaki material and then on 30/05/2018 they discuss ‘bring up their children in the paths of their Uncles Wail and Suleyman’. There is ongoing conversations between Mr Aweys and his sisters about building ‘Asma’s school’ in their garden.”

“I believe it to be necessary and proportionate for conditions contained within a SCPO to run alongside Part 4 notification requirements. They will provide a more robust approach to managing Mr Aweys in the community. It is currently assessed that Mr Aweys is very high risk to the public. A SCPO will subject him to tighter controls, which enables professional to better manage that risk.”

“Taking into account my use of the ERG22+ structured professional judgement tool, I have assessed Mr Aweys as having a medium/high level of engagement in an extremist group, cause or ideology; a medium/high level of intention to commit an extremist offence; and some level of capability for such offending. It is my opinion that Mr Aweys poses a high likelihood of future extremist offending. This assessment supports his OASys risk assessment and the fact that Mr Aweys has several offences linked to terrorism.”

“Other future offending could comprise of Mr Aweys obtaining and sharing extremist documents, magazines, and online propaganda. Mr Aweys could engage in indoctrination behaviours, encouraging and praising others. This risk would be greatest when he is with family members who also support extremism and are involved with criminal activity and particularly at times when they are experiencing difficult situations. At the current time I do not assess this risk as imminent given restrictions and safeguarding measure that are in place in custody and will be on release.”

“Need for identity, meaning and belonging Internal page 9 was previously assessed as strongly present in both the initial and review ERG assessments (March and November 2023). It is noted in previous assessments that at the time of the TACT offence, Mr Aweys had no clear sense of identity or focus and he was not engaged in employment or other constructive activities at the time. He also experienced the breakdown of his marriage and was emotionally impacted by the disappearance of his brothers. It is reported that by consuming Isis material and engaging with the cause, Mr Aweys is likely to have gained some sense of belonging and purpose. There are no indications that his views of Isis have changed but it can’t be confirmed that he continues to use the group to provide a sense of identity, meaning and belonging.” “Need for status Internal page 10 was previously assessed as partly present in both the initial and review assessments. It was assessed that there was some evidence of Mr Aweys wanting to feel special or significant and some beliefs of superiority have been identified. Mr Aweys has also at times presented as arrogant. Previous reports have assessed that engaging in previous offending allowed Mr Aweys to gain a sense of status that he was lacking at the time. Mr Aweys has been described as intelligent, educated and charismatic and so these characteristics are likely to have allowed him to achieve some status whilst sharing extremist material with others at the time of the TACT offence. Whilst being supervised on licence, Mr Aweys has commented that he feels his religion is superior but stated that everyone chooses what they feel is the best path for them and that is what he has chosen to do, so he may not view his comments as arrogant. Mr Aweys has also indicated that he views what he considers Western and liberal values as inferior, suggesting that he is likely to view his more traditional values and religious customs as morally superior. There is no indication at present that Mr Aweys is gaining a sense of status or recognition from an extremist group. However, he clearly likes to be viewed as different and recognised for doing better than others, as he has made comments about being more disciplined than others in custody and at the AP. This item therefore continues to be rated as partly present and due to Mr Aweys’ current lack of significant roles (being unemployed, unmarried etc), this factor could be relevant to any future offending.” “Family and/or friends support extremist offending Internal page 12 was rated as strongly present in both the initial and review ERGs. This is due to several family members having been co- defendants in Mr Aweys’ offending. He also has half siblings who have been convicted for TACT matters. Discussion between family members at the time of the TACT offence indicated that they thought of their late brothers (who had travelled to Syria) as martyrs. Mr Aweys had also made a comment to his sister that they should raise their children ‘in the paths of their uncles’ (ERG March 2023, page 12, paragraph 3.10). Currently Mr Aweys’ main support network is his family. He has not disclosed having any other associates. He is not married and has not disclosed any romantic relationships whilst being on licence. He recently requested amendments to licence conditions so that he could travel to spend more time with family, which indicates that maintaining family connections is a priority for him. He has also commented that due to his faith, it is expected that he maintain family ties. Some of Mr Aweys family appear to have moved away from offending and have some significant protective factors in place. However as noted above, Mr Aweys does have half siblings that have been convicted for TACT offences and other matters and due to the importance he places on family relationships, it is possible he will seek contact with his siblings once his sentence expires. As a result, this factor is assessed to remain strongly present.” “Level of engagement is currently assessed as high. Internal page 13 The previous ERG review (November 2023) assessed engagement to be medium- high. There are indicators currently that Mr Aweys supports extremist ideology to some extent. He has commented that individuals who previously pledged their allegiance to Isis were right to do so. He believes that it was also right to withdraw their support due to the group no longer holding a sovereign state. This suggests that if the group were to establish a state once again, that Mr Aweys may believe it justified to support them. Mr Aweys also lacks protective factors as noted above such as employment or support networks outside of his family. As Mr Aweys’ sentence is soon to expire, he will be subject to fewer restrictions, which would mean that he can make contact with family members if he so chooses. As previously noted, some of his siblings have been convicted for TACT offences and others have been co-defendants and so rebuilding these connections could contribute to further engagement in extremist activity.”

“Theologian intervention Internal page 18 Mr Aweys began working with a theologian in December 2023. Objectives set included exploring Mr Aweys’ interpretation of Islam, his influences, support to understand misinterpretations and support to manage negative influences of others. In relation to his faith. Mr Aweys has presented as very knowledgeable and well read and he has indicated that his faith is central to his identity. He has some very rigid views in relation to his faith and has not always been open to alternative interpretations when counter narratives have been presented. He has generally engaged well in sessions and displayed some openness when discussing his views but on occasion has presented as reserved. He has presented with a strong belief in his faith and expressed that he believes his future is written and so he does not need to be concerned about anything. Through discussions on Isis, it is apparent that Mr Aweys believes that supporters of the group were right to pledge allegiance when they established themselves as a state. Mr Aweys has also commented that Isis were the only group in modern times to enforce Sharia laws, which he appears to respect. He believes that Sharia law should be introduced in Muslims countries when a Muslim group comes to power. He has not indicated that he would like this to be introduced in the UK…..”

“This report has been completed to review the factors considered linked to Mr Aweys’ engagement in extremism, his intent to take action to further the aims of an extremist cause and the capability he has to do so… It is assessed that Mr Aweys currently presents a high level of engagement, medium level of intent and some capability. This is a slight change to the assessment completed in November 2023, as engagement was assessed as medium-high and intent as medium to high. It is assessed currently that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr Aweys continues to be engaged with extremist ideology and propaganda. There are no indications at present that Mr Aweys intends to take action on behalf of an extremist group but there are continued concerns regarding attitudes towards other groups and so intent is assessed as medium. There is no change to the assessment of capability.”