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, alongside dismissals and protective outcomes in speech-based and proscription-related cases.

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 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 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 figure “five-star jihadi”; R v AK (2022), involved categorisation of a foreign fighter and the involvement of Iran, Lebanon and Hizbollah in the Syrian conflict; R v S (2024), allegations linked to multiple conflicts, including Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Russia and Ukraine; R v MAB, 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 & 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 also 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; 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 (2023–2024) (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.

 Find out more about the high-profile cases she has acted in.