The short version
- Prosecutors allege three men conducted surveillance on journalists and a lawyer to facilitate planned violent attacks in the UK.
- Defendants deny all charges, with one claiming coercion while others dispute knowledge of intelligence service involvement.
- The trial highlights ongoing concerns regarding foreign state interference and threats against independent media voices operating in Britain.
A London court has heard allegations that three individuals acted as agents for Iranian intelligence services to plan serious violent attacks against specific targets in the United Kingdom. The proceedings at Woolwich Crown Court involve Mostafa Sepahvand, Farhad Javadi Manesh, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, who face charges under the National Security Act. Prosecutors presented evidence suggesting these men engaged in extensive surveillance and reconnaissance activities aimed at journalists and a prominent legal figure.
The primary targets identified during the trial include Mojtaba Pourmohsen and Kambiz Hosseini, both journalists associated with Iran International, a Persian-language broadcaster based in London. Additionally, Jonathan Turner, a founding member of UK Lawyers for Israel, was listed among those subjected to monitoring. The prosecution argues that the surveillance was not merely observational but served as preparatory steps for physical violence against these individuals.
Sepahvand, aged 41, is accused of intending to personally execute a violent attack on at least one of the identified targets. Manesh, 46, and Noori, 57, are alleged to have assisted in the planning phases of these operations. All three defendants deny the charges brought against them. The court was told that between August 2024 and March of the following year, the men visited addresses linked to their targets, captured photographs and video footage, and utilized online research tools including artificial intelligence platforms to gather information.
Evidence presented included a voice note from Sepahvand in which he discussed financial incentives for completing the assigned tasks. In the recording, he reportedly stated that he would eliminate a target if paid 150,000 pounds, noting that an initial transfer of 10,000 pounds was required to begin the work. He acknowledged the criminal nature of the activity and the potential for severe prison sentences, yet indicated his willingness to proceed upon receiving payment and identification of the victim.
Sepahvand’s defense claims he was coerced into conducting surveillance under threat, asserting that he deliberately performed the tasks poorly to avoid success. Prosecutors dismissed this explanation as entirely unfounded, arguing instead that Sepahvand participated willingly in exchange for money and promises to resolve a prior theft conviction in Iran. The prosecution emphasized that his actions were motivated by financial gain and legal leverage rather than duress.
Manesh and Noori have claimed they were unaware that their surveillance activities were assisting Iranian intelligence services. However, the charges assert that their conduct was likely to aid a foreign power. Sepahvand admits to conducting surveillance for the benefit of the Iranian regime but maintains he acted under pressure. The jury was informed that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the three men carried out the monitoring and reconnaissance activities described by the prosecution.
The case underscores broader concerns about national security threats posed by foreign state actors targeting independent media and civil society figures in the UK. The use of digital tools and open-source research methods highlights the evolving nature of such operations, which blend traditional surveillance with modern technology. The trial continues as jurors consider the evidence regarding intent, coercion, and the specific roles each defendant played in the alleged plot.
Legal experts note that convictions under the National Security Act require demonstrating a clear link between the conduct and the assistance of a foreign intelligence service. The defense arguments focus on denying this connection and challenging the prosecution’s narrative of voluntary participation. The outcome of this trial may set precedents for how similar cases involving alleged state-sponsored espionage and violence are prosecuted in British courts.
The defendants were assisted by interpreters during the proceedings, reflecting the complex linguistic and cultural dimensions of the case. As the trial progresses, further details regarding the extent of Iranian involvement and the specific mechanisms of communication between the defendants and their handlers may emerge. The court remains focused on determining whether the actions taken constituted criminal offenses under current national security legislation.
This development adds to a growing body of cases involving allegations of foreign interference in UK affairs. The targeting of journalists raises significant questions about press freedom and safety for media professionals operating in sensitive geopolitical contexts. The resolution of this trial will likely influence future legal strategies for addressing threats against public figures and the integrity of independent journalism.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Alleged Iranian spies planned ‘serious violence’ against UK journalists, court hears
