THE terror-related conviction of the international director of advocacy group Cage under anti-terror legislation is “unsafe,” the High Court heard today.

Muhammed Rabbani was stopped at Heathrow airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 on his return from Qatar in November 2016 while in possession of documents detailing the torture of Ali al-Marri by FBI agents.

After refusing to provide the passwords to his electronic devices, Mr Rabanni was charged and ultimately convicted of wilful obstruction of a search under the Terrorism Act, for which he received a 12-month conditional discharge.

Henry Blaxland QC, for Mr Rabbani, said schedule 7 was a “coercive and intrusive power which violates Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] and which therefore requires certain safeguards to be put in place.”

Schedule 7 gives police, immigration and customs officials the power to stop, search and detain anyone at ports, airports or international railway stations without the need to suspect an individual of involvement in terrorism.

Mr Blaxland said that, in Mr Rabbani’s case, “the power was not exercised compatibly with Article 8 [the right to privacy] and, as a result of that, this conviction is unsafe.”

Tom Little QC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that “this was not a random stop” but one based on intelligence, asserting that it and the subsequent conviction were both lawful.

He said that there were “adequate safeguards” in the Schedule 7 code of practice and asked the court to “trust these officers.”
 
Lord Justice Irwin reserved judgement to a later date.
 
After the hearing, Mr Rabbani told the Star that the case was significant “for anyone that travels through UK borders carrying confidential or private information.”
 
Acknowledging that safeguards exist, he said: “It’s all there in the code of practice, but police officers didn’t apply it [in my case] and probably don’t apply it in practice.”

Mr Rabbani said he was willing to pursue the case to “the Supreme Court and potentially further if we need to.

“I cannot accept that I was convicted of a terrorist offence. Basically, I’m a convicted terrorist and it just shows the absurdity of the Schedule 7 powers.

“I still believe that I did that which was right. I protected the privacy of a torture survivor.”