Terror case student wanted to ‘debate against’ views of Islamic State, jury told

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A PhD student accused of plotting to make a drone capable of delivering a bomb was “fascinated” by so-called Islamic State because he wanted to argue against the terror group’s views, a court has heard.

The second day of the trial of Mohamad Al-Bared, 26, heard he was not a supporter of IS and that his work on a drone was part of research into removing heat from electric motors.

Prosecutors allege the mechanical engineering graduate, of Kare Road, Coventry, intended to supply terrorists with a drone to carry a bomb or chemical weapon.

The University of Birmingham PhD student denies a charge alleging he engaged in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts to benefit a proscribed terrorist organisation between January 1 2022 and January 31 this year.

His barrister, Alistair Webster KC, addressed Birmingham Crown Court on Tuesday in a 20-minute opening speech outlining issues for the jury to consider during the case.

Telling jurors that Al-Bared was not a supporter of IS, Mr Webster said “thoroughly repugnant” material, including some related to beheadings, was found on devices linked to the defendant because he wanted to “debate” against their views.

Mr Webster said: “He accepts that he is fascinated by Islamic State and its mindset, but rather than supporting it he wanted to argue against it, in the mosque, online.”

Submitting that Al-Bared is highly intelligent and well-educated, the defence lawyer continued: “You will see some of his (university) work during this trial.

“The fact he was doing this sort of work and had these sorts of interests is important.”

Adding that Al-Bared has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder while in custody, Mr Webster went on: “He has been examined by the psychiatrists for the prosecution and the defence.

“They are in agreement, they both agree that he suffers from autistic spectrum disorder, what some used to call Asperger’s.”

The condition was relevant because it affected how Al-Bared would present in court and, in the view of a psychiatrist, meant he showed features of obsessionality and fixated on interests to an abnormal degree, the court heard.

Although Al-Bared did not himself believe that he has autistic spectrum disorder, Mr Webster said: “He’s wrong on that because both psychiatrists have come to the conclusion that he has.

“His case is his principal reason for interest in Islamic State was how they think, so he could debate against their point of view.”

Urging jurors to see things through the prism of someone with the disorder when assessing Al-Bared’s mindset, Mr Webster said: “It’s very important and fundamental to a proper understanding of the case.

“You will have to decide whether this really was a man with a terrorist motivation.

“He was constructing a drone, and consulting others in relation to it, but for his own research purposes, totally unconnected with designing a weapon.”

Work on the drone had been linked to dissipating heat from electric motors and not on delivering any sort of weapon, he added.

“He had a great interest in religion – but many religions,” Mr Webster said of Al-Bared. “He accepts he was fascinated by Jihadism but his fascination by it does not by any means mean that he embraced it.

“He does not accept that he completed any form to join Islamic State or any other similar organisation.”

Urging  jurors to consider what was in the defendant’s head, Mr Webster concluded: “That, we say, was far more complicated than the prosecution would have you believe.”

The trial continues.