Guilty verdict in a high-profile online threat case
A 26-year-old Afghan migrant was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court of threatening to kill Nigel Farage in a TikTok video posted last October. The verdict follows a trial in which jurors heard how the accused, Fayaz Khan, used provocative imagery and explicit gun gestures in social media posts that prosecutors described as sinister and menacing.
The court heard that Khan, who has lived in Sweden since 2019, arrived in the UK on a small boat from France and was arrested after landing in October 2023. He did not testify during the trial, which concluded after jurors deliberated for almost 12 hours.
The case at a glance
According to prosecutors, Farage uploaded a YouTube video on 12 October titled “The journey of an illegal migrant,” which referenced Khan and warned about young men of fighting age entering the country. Two days later, Khan posted a response video in which he stated, “Englishman Nigel, don’t talk s**t about me.” In a tense sequence, he allegedly said he would come to England and “pop, pop, pop,” while mimicking gun gestures and pointing to an AK-47 tattoo on his face to underscore the message.
Mr Farage attended the trial and described the threat as “pretty chilling,” saying he was genuinely worried given Khan’s apparent proximity to firearms in the content he produced. The jury was shown other clips in which Khan made similar “pop, pop, pop” noises and repeated gun gestures.
Legal proceedings and arguments
Prosecutor Peter Ratliff argued that the threat to kill was not a casual remark but a deliberate and menacing act. He described Khan as a “dangerous man with an interest in firearms.” The defence, led by Charles Royle, contended that Khan was “remonstrating in his own idiosyncratic, moronic, comedic, eye-catching, attention-seeking way” and emphasized that the case was not about immigration policy or tattoos, but about whether the video amounted to a credible threat.
Mr Royle also noted Khan’s decision not to give evidence. He told jurors that their verdict should not punish him for not speaking in court and asserted that the trial was not about personal beliefs on immigration or political topics.
Impact and broader context
The incident has renewed discussions about the role of social media in disseminating extremist or violent imagery and the potential for online posts to be interpreted as real-world threats. Nigel Farage, who has been a prominent figure in UK political discourse and leadership of Reform UK, welcomed the verdict, emphasizing the seriousness of threats against political figures in the online age.
Legal experts have pointed to the evolving landscape of online communications, where posts can be widely viewed and quickly escalated into legal concerns. The court’s decision underscores the principle that online rhetoric can cross into criminal territory when it involves credible threats of violence.
What happens next
With the guilty verdict delivered, sentencing will follow in due course. The case serves as a reminder to social media users that threats of violence, even when framed in a provocative or performative manner, carry legal consequences in the UK.
For now, Farage and other public figures may continue to face a heightened awareness of online threats, while authorities emphasize the need to monitor digital content for safety and security considerations.
