Islamic State: Prosecution strategy in shreds as another case against an anti-IS fighter collapses

The case against a former Parachute Regiment soldier accused of supporting anti-IS fighters in Syria has been dramatically dropped, leaving a prosecution strategy in tatters.

Daniel Burke, 33, from Wythenshawe, Manchester, was one of three former fighters who were prosecuted for offences connected with the YPG, the main Western-backed force fighting against Islamic State.

His is the second case to be dropped by prosecutors before trial and a third case was largely thrown out by a judge.

The case was also dropped on Friday against a father and son accused of supporting Daniel Newey, another fighter who has re-joined the same YPG forces.

The judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, had been due to hear an “abuse of process” application by the defence who were seeking to have the case struck out on the grounds that it was an “arbitrary” prosecution, driven by a desire by the government to placate Turkey.

Burke had previously been told he would not be prosecuted for fighting in Syria, only to be charged when he made moves to re-join the fighting in the face of a sudden US withdrawal last year.

The withdrawal of US forces cleared the way for a Turkish incursion into northern Syria amid accusations that the West had abandoned its ally, the YPG.

Andy Hall QC, defending, said such a prosecution depended on “political whim”, and that it was “a lottery rather than the rule of law”.

Simon Davis, prosecuting, said only that the “prosecution appreciate there is now insufficient evidence to sustain a realistic prospect of conviction”.

Mr Hall called for a more detailed explanation, adding: “The court is entitled to know, Mr Burke is entitled to know, and the public, who have funded these long and expensive hearings, would no doubt like to know.”

The judge asked the prosecution to “give serious consideration to being more forthcoming” adding: “This is not the first occasion this scenario has occurred.”

The abandonment marks the end of an unsuccessful prosecution strategy to try and hold a mixed bunch of fighters who joined the Kurdish militia to the same standards as those who joined IS.

It was highly controversial because the Kurdish forces they were fighting with were backed by British and American air power and special forces on the ground as they took the fight to IS.

Burke was accused of preparing acts of terrorism after he was stopped on his way to re-join Western-backed Kurdish forces last December following the withdrawal of US forces.

He was also said to have assisted Daniel Newey prepare an act of terrorism, after Newey returned to the fighting a month earlier.

A third charge accused Burke of entering into an arrangement to provide money and military equipment for the purposes of terrorism, to the same Kurdish forces.

Prosecutors sought to prove that a group called Shadows of Hope was a “mechanism by which those who wish to go and fight in Syria can go and do so under the cloak of humanitarian aid”.

Daniel Newey’s father, Paul Newey, 49, from Walsall, was accused of entering into a terrorist funding arrangement for sums totalling £150 in the first such case of its kind for relatives of anti-IS fighters.

Another son, Samuel Newey, 19, was accused of preparing acts of terrorism by helping his older brother to return to Syria.

Samuel Newey was said to have high functioning autism and had to be interviewed by police in the presence of an appropriate adult.

In 2018, the case was dropped against James Matthews, a former soldier in the Royal Pioneer Corps, who was also accused of training with the same group, the Kurdish YPG.

Aidan James, from Formby, Merseyside, was jailed for just 12 months last year for training with the Kurdish PKK.

A judge threw out a charge of fighting with the YPG and a jury acquitted him of training with the YPG for terrorist purposes.

Mr Justice Edis said he was “uneasy about the prosecution of a man who is able to say that at least some of the acts of terrorism for which he was preparing or trained were carried out with the support of the RAF”.

In the Burke case, Mr Hall, defending, argued that prosecutors were arbitrarily distinguishing reasonable self-defence against one invading military force – IS – from another – the Turkish army – on political grounds.

“This gives rise to a risk that legislation intended to protect the public could be used for broader political purposes,” he said after the case.

“At a time when there is significant criticism of the introduction in Hong Kong of sweeping and ill-defined new terrorist offences, there is a need for review of the scope of the definition of terrorism in our own legislation.

“Its use in recent cases to prosecute British volunteers fighting against the genocidal activities of proscribed terrorist groups in Syria arguably goes far beyond the intention of parliament in passing the legislation, and potentially brings the law into disrepute.

“We suspect most members of the public might well consider Kurdish resistance to the unlawful use of military force, either by terrorist groups such as IS, or other invading forces, to be legitimate self-defence.

“The law needs to be clarified to ensure that self-defence is excluded from the ‘political or ideological’ purposes that underpin the definition of terrorism.”

(c) Sky News 2020: Islamic State: Prosecution strategy in shreds as another case against an anti-IS fighter collapses