Did UK police share lawyer's phone data with Mossad?

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]7 months ago, Farad Ansari joined me to describe how he was stopped under the Tourism Act while returning from a family holiday in Ireland. His work phone was seized despite containing legally privileged communications with clients and he warned that the case could have profound implications for legal privilege and civil liberties in Britain.

[00:00:23]Since then, extraordinary new developments have emerged. As Farad's legal challenge against the police and the home office moved forward, a police risk assessment revealed that he had been identified as Hamas. UN special reporters have intervened and the court of appeal has now paused his case while key legal issues are considered. I wanted to invite Farhead back to ask what has happened since we last spoke, why this case is attracting international scrutiny and what it means for lawyers, activists, and anyone speaking out for Palestine. Thank you for agreeing to come on uh Farhead. How you doing?

[00:00:59]>> Hey Chrisman, thank you for having me back on. It's been a bit of an eventful year. Let's say >> you've been very busy. It's I'm surprised you got any time uh to speak to me. Anyway, um when we spoke uh 7 months ago, you described being stopped under the terrorism act and having your phone seized. Uh what's happened since then?

[00:01:18]>> So, I think we spoke last September and uh at the beginning of the legal challenge. So, I issued judicial review proceedings against the police and the home office for detaining me and uh taking my phone and the what I was most concerned about was them accessing the data on my phone. So, we were seeking interim relief that look until this case concludes they shouldn't be allowed to look through my phone. Um, the police in court made a big hoo-ha about it being national security. And they gave the impression to the judge that it was uh almost like some like imminent plot was about to be unhatched and they needed to access my phone. And so the judge said, "Um, well, why did you stop them in the first place?" And they said, "We can't tell you and open. It's all top secret.

[00:02:06]So, amazingly, they they relied on secret evidence. So, me and my lawyers were removed from the courtroom. We weren't allowed see this material. To this day, I've not been given the allegations against me um formally. Um and so the judge then refused to grant me interim relief. He said, "It's in the interest of national security that the the police are not stopped from doing their duties." Uh it was it was it was crazy. I mean in the courtroom was packed like there's about 20 you know MI5 counterterrorism officers and I as I said to my lawyers all these guys for me and my phone this is this is crazy. Uh I've never seen even that many people in in my own clients cases like this is just really weird. So anyway we we we lost the application for in relief. the judge uh they said we we've appointed this independent so-called independent barrister who's going to look through the phone to make sure no privilege material is disclosed to the cops.

[00:03:07]We had a hearing in March and then in in January or February it turns out that this independent council still hasn't even opened my phone and you're thinking they give such an impression that was is this huge plot was about to be uncovered and no one bothered looking at the phone for months then after that. So that just gives you an indication of of the kind of duplicity with which this case is being run. Um so fast forward we we we come to March we now know what Chris what you have to understand is in cases where they are relying secret evidence they still have to give you a gist or a summary of the allegation against you.

[00:03:44]So for example in Shamim's case they're relying on secret evidence but they give an allegation which is you went to Syria and you joined ISIS. So at least you have something that you can actually rebut.

[00:03:57]In my case, they said uh Chamberlain, Justice Chamberlain in the high court said, "Well, this will not apply to schedule 7 cases like schedule 7 is the power under which they detained me at the at Holy Head and took my phone and he said it doesn't apply to this." And he went against all the senior judges and authorities on this point for some reason and that it doesn't apply and that means that if he had his way, I would never even get a summary of the allegations. So my hearing was due to commence last week um on the 6th and 7th of May and uh my lawyers the week before that we were desperately for weeks were trying to get an appeal on this disclosure point. We went to the court of appeal and the court of appeal looked at our arguments and they gave a last minute stay meaning they paused the proceedings because they said this is actually quite an interesting point and uh there's merit in what the claimant is saying that he should get at least something. Now in between that this is where the document you mentioned happens. We got what's called the open disclosure. This is just a paperwork that they had at the time. And in that paperwork, it wasn't a lot of material, but there was a a risk assessment that they'd completed. And this risk assessment was when they stop me, the detective inspector has to fill in a form about how likely it is that I'm going to try to run away or escape or fight them when they detain me. Um, and then it is quite interesting because they describe me as a very pleasant man.

[00:05:26]um which I think I am but also they describe me in there's a box that says uh membership of any known group and in there they've written at the beginning Hamas. So you're looking at that and you're thinking, whoa, like all this time I thought that the allegation was that I supported Hamas, but they've like upgraded my membership to to like full-fledged membership, you know, card carrying member of Hamas. And >> and the inspector obviously when they were giving us these documents, he knew he'd be asked. So he prepared a statement. And in the statement, he said, "Oh, I didn't mean to say Hamas, a member. I meant to write down solicitor for Hamas." Which begs the question, why would you even put solicitor for Hamas under a box that says membership of a known group? Unless you in your mind believe that a solicitor for a group is also a member. Now, as I as I said to to Harun as the Guardian in that scenario, this is like Echoes of Ireland where people like Pat Fenukin who were solicitors for the IRA were actually accused of being unduly sympathetic to to the IRA and in essence being members and uh you know gunned down by loyalist militias in collusion with the British state.

[00:06:43]That's really what you're you're looking at. It's the same type of messaging going that if you are a solister for this for Hamas, you by default must be Hamas. Um and and that the concerning part of this this is the logic which Israel utilizes that if you work in a Hamas governed hospital because they're the governing entity in Gaza or you work in a school or you you're paid by Hamas to clean the streets because you work in the council that you are there for Hamas as well. Um and therefore you must be basically targeted like Hamas. And I think the British state has done that to me is that they've identified me as some assass. Um but that's all we have.

[00:07:19]That's all we have to go on at the moment. Um we we have sought disclosure.

[00:07:24]We're asking for it. The court of appeals are looking at that point. But they really should be um you know if this is what has come out in the open disclosure. What is it that they're hiding from me? I mean that's what I'm concerned about. What are the allegations? because I I should be able to rebut them and and and fight my case in like in open rather than being blindfolded with two hands behind my back trying to guess what they're getting at.

[00:07:48]One of the the the points that is really important to understand here is that by the high court making the decision it did that anybody stopped under schedule 7 is not entitled to know the case against them. What they've done is they've put somebody who breaks the law by refusing to give their their PIN or complying with the search under schedule 7 in a better position than someone who follows the law and and uh doesn't get arrested. Cuz if anyone gets arrested for refusing to give their their their pins to their devices or refusing to give their fingerprints or refusing to comply in any way and then they're prosecuted in the prosecution in the normal criminal prosecution, they would get all the disclosure against them. they get the material, they get the reasons why they were stopped. All of that would come come out in their normal, you know, proceedings. So that person is in a better position. Tommy Robbins, for example, comes to mind. He when he was prosecuted, he got to see the full case against him and he won. So the way that the high court has left this is almost a message to the members of the public that if you want to know why you're being stopped, if you want to see the case against you, you're better off not complying, you're better off breaking the law and being prosecuted than to comply and then challenge it through the the mechanism they've given you afterwards. So that's something the court of appeal are going to be aware of uh when they're considering whether I should be given the disclosure of my case.

[00:09:17]>> Are you concerned that the police are behaving with an Israeli mindset and therefore might be sending this information onto Israel? I mean it there there is some kind of concern that this information from your phone might have been accessed by Israel.

[00:09:38]>> So I don't think the British are are are behaving with an Israeli mindset. I think they're behaving with a British mindset because this is what the British you know have have done for for for centuries. And you this is how they operate. Um they operate like this before the creation of Israel. they're operating like this and they'll carry on operating like this after Israel is is completely um wiped off off the geographical map. Uh this is the way the British Empire operates. So they're treating me as a member of a group that they are at effectively war with just because I represent them. Now it happens that they are fully complicit in this genocide that Israel is carrying out on the ground. And it it's, you know, reasonable to assume that I was stopped with a view to taking my phone, taking the data of that phone that might be of interest to the Israeli security services and passing it on to them. Um, we have asked, my lawyers have asked the police, did you uh disclose? Did you share the data with anyone? The police have come back and they've said, we've gone through the phone now and we're happy to delete it and double delete it.

[00:10:48]if that means completely take it off our systems. Um, so we wrote back said that that's fine. Well, we appreciate that you're deleting it on your end, but who have you shared it with and what guarantee do we have that they are going to delete it? So, they've come back and they've NCD, meaning they've neither confirmed nor denied that they shared the data with anyone else. Um, you mentioned the UN special reporator. So in in February uh unbeknownst to me the five UN special reporators intervened with the UK government and wrote them a letter of 11page letter of deep concern about the what they call the harassment and intimidation of me because of my representation of Hamas. Um expressing great concern for the rule of law. Uh why I've been targeted in sway. Uh they talked about the fact that senior politicians were smearing me and I've been subjected to death threats. Um and they also asked specifically was the data shared with any foreign agencies and again the government just deflected they didn't answer the question. So in those circumstances it does seem to me that it's very very reasonable to assume that that that data was shared with Israel. I mean why why wouldn't it be?

[00:12:01]If it hadn't been, they could just simply say, "No, we haven't shared it with anyone and we're deleting it, but they've taken this position. We're neither confirming or denied denying it." And in our secret hearing in your case, we will comment more about this.

[00:12:13]What why this is of particular concern to me, the data being shared with the Israelis is Israel has this policy of very very public policy of assassinating anyone that they assume is a Hamas official or linked to Hamas, whether that's their politicians, any healthcare workers, journalists. We know that happens. Now, by that logic, the if the Brit if Britain assumes that I'm a member of Hamas because I represent them, you can just imagine the Israelis probably have a similar position on that. Um, and that means that people who are on my telephone, they're automatically going to assume that these people must be members of Hamas because they're on my phone. So any Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank uh who is a contact of mine is on my telephone, I fear that they're going to be seen to be members of Hamas as well or connected to Hamas and they will be detained, tortured or worse uh because that association. Um and we've got no assurances from the government despite us expressing these concerns that that's not going to happen. the police and and the government legal department, they know the difference between a solicitor and their client. They they know that that >> you you would hope >> I mean it it it just seems to me um that this is this is a deliberate um pre pretense that they don't understand that. Um it's weird. It's weird. I mean these people have been trained in law for years and years. They know a solicitor does a particular job representing a client. It doesn't mean they have anything to do with that client other than they're doing their work in the court or in whatever it is they have to do legally.

[00:13:54]How are they how are they able to make out they don't understand it? I mean or it doesn't make sense, does it? Well, I mean, they they they've sort of their their position is that we we we would never we we don't believe that, you know, they've they've we've got the document says that I'm a member. Their excuse is, oh, we meant to write he's a solicitor and we all know he's a solicitor and he wasn't their official position. Oh, he wasn't targeted because he represented a group. But then in one of the hearings, the the barer for the police, she said, "Oh, there's a difference between um a solicitor and a solicitor for a prescribed group." And in the latter case where it's reasonable for us to um check their political views uh to see if they cross the line. Now there's a racial element to this as well because there's many solicitors who represent many prescribed groups. I'm not the first you know person to represent a prescribed group but like with the Irish community where you come from the same sort of background, same community. So Papanuka and Rosemary Nelson, they're Catholics who represented uh he came from the same communities, the same working-class communities from which the IRA came. So there was a racial assumption made that they must be and actually said they said like Douglas Hog said in parliament that it's a regrettable fact that we have solicitors in the north of Ireland who are unduly sympathetic towards the cause of the IRA. Um and he said this repeatedly until Papanukin was killed.

[00:15:19]Papanukin if I think if he came from a different background he' maybe not have had that issue. If I was a white you know Church of England going member or you know or from any other community representing Hamas I don't think I've had this issue. In fact I'm a brown Muslim uh who feels strongly about Palestine. Um and it's assumed then that oh well I must be so sympathetic to this that I must be akin to being a member. I don't believe I don't actually believe they think I'm a member, but it's designed, this whole policy is designed not just to silence me, but to silence my client. So, they're they do not get representation because people are going to be spooked. People will not want to actually take on the case of Hamas after seeing the the manner in which I've been targeted. And that that will leave Hamas without legal representation. And that's what this is all about. It's not about me. need to silence the voice of the Palestinian resistance.

[00:16:13]>> Yeah, I I was thinking the same thing about with the the doctors who have been uh targeted and we've had uh journalists have been targeted in this country, >> activists obviously, but now there seems to be a lawyers are being targeted because we saw this also with the Filton case that one of the lawyers has been >> actually put through a contempt of court hearing. Um what what did you make of that uh as well? Is that's like the same it's just part of the same thing, isn't it?

[00:16:44]>> Yeah, it's extraordinary. I mean, I think it's the first time in history that a barristister has been brought in for contempt for his closing speech. And and when you look at the reasons that that they've given for that closing speech was simply reminding the duty, so reminding the jurors of the principle of jury equity that they can follow their conscience.

[00:17:03]read out the placard that they have outside the old Bailey, you know, it's the central criminal court and for that the, you know, Judge Johnson who has now since been promoted. Um, you know, not saying there's a connection. I'm just saying that he's been promoted since since this uh has, you know, he's referred him for contempt. It's extraordinary. I mean, it's just and all of this again is because it goes back to Palestine. The Filton case itself is extraordinary.

[00:17:32]um all of the cases we're seeing in the last few weeks. Mag Freeman on trial and we're waiting for a jury verdict in his case and I sat through some of the days of of his trial in Birmingham and um you know it was a bit trial about emojis about triangles and emojis of birds and doves and uh bomb explosions and you're like wow and at the same time you have um the Met Police refusing to investigate this report brought by the public interest law center in the Palestinian human rights center uh against 10 British citizens who went and joined the IDF um in Gaza during the genocide. And there's like 300 pages of evidence have been given to them and the men have simply turned around and said, "Oh, we don't think it's um a realistic prospect of uh pro of conviction, so we're not even going to investigate."

[00:18:22]And yet you're spending a man is going to spend probably 14 years in prison if he's found guilty for posting a bunch of videos of red triangles over Israeli tanks, military targets. And that's you know okay so the developments in in in in the legal system in this country is actually quite shocking the lengths that has been going that it that the system is taking towards protecting the colonial project in the Middle East.

[00:18:49]That's really what this is all about.

[00:18:52]>> Has your confidence in the legal system being diminished by this? I mean, or did you suspect it was already kind of corrupted in a way and that it would do what the state wanted it to do?

[00:19:04]>> Yeah, I mean, look, I I I'm not one of those lawyers who who, you know, has a whole lot of confidence in the legal system, I think it's there and you get some good results, but when it comes to upholding government policies towards um especially the foreign policy in terms of Zionism, h it's very rare that you get a win. And even when you do get a win, it's not because of the legal principles as it should be. It's because of public pressure. Uh I often give the example of Palestine Action.

[00:19:33]And in my opinion, there's no way that Palestine Action would have succeeded in their judicial review, you know, with a very conservative bench had it not been for the public advocacy efforts. The fact that thousands of people were going on the streets holding up the plaque cards making the law uninforceable, the defend our juries campaign. The fact that uh you had protests outside British embassies around the world, you had US special raptors making interventions with the government. Um this all came because of uh people like the Filton, the the hunger strikes. This all brought international attention to why are these people being prosecuted as terrorists?

[00:20:09]Why why are you banning this group under the terrorism act? this protest group and um it's in the judgment as much. I mean there's lots of paragraphs talking about the public the public campaign around it. Um so yeah I I think Palestine Action would never have succeeded in their case had it not been for the public advocacy. So I think lawyers and their role in all of this is quite overstated. Uh we need to recognize where real power comes from and that's not from the courtroom. It's from outside the courtroom.