Guilty verdict closes high-profile case over TikTok threat
The case of Fayaz Khan, a 26-year-old Afghan migrant, concluded at Southwark Crown Court with a jury finding him guilty of threatening to kill Nigel Farage. The verdict, delivered after almost 12 hours of deliberation, centers on a TikTok video posted between 12 and 15 October last year in which Khan appeared to threaten the Reform UK leader.
What the jury heard
The prosecution described Khan as a figure with a prominent online presence. Court exhibits showed TikTok videos featuring him attempting to reach the United Kingdom by small boat, a voyage that had attracted hundreds of thousands of views. The jurors were told that the defendant had a striking visual cue: an AK-47 tattoo on his right cheek and arm, which he used to emphasise a menacing persona in online content.
In contrast, Khan’s defence argued that his videos were not a sincere threat but rather a provocative form of self-expression. Prosecutor Peter Ratliff argued that the threat was a calculated message rather than a offhand remark, calling the content “sinister and menacing.” The evidence included a following TikTok post displaying an image from a GB News report about the alleged threat, accompanied by the words “I mean what I say.”
Farage’s reaction and the courtroom atmosphere
Nigel Farage attended the trial and described the video as “pretty chilling.” He explained that the proximity to firearms and the imagery used in Khan’s posts caused him genuine concern. “He says he’s coming to England and he’s going to shoot me,” Farage said after the verdict, underscoring the fear such online statements can provoke when linked to real-world politics and immigration debates.
The defence’s take and the broader context
Charles Royle, Khan’s defence lawyer, insisted that the videos were a form of idiosyncratic entertainment rather than a real threat. He urged jurors not to interpret Khan’s actions as a reflection of the broader debate on immigration, face tattoos, or political party support. “This is not about your views on illegal immigration, nor about your views on face tattoos, Brexit or Reform,” he told the court, emphasizing that Khan’s online persona was a troubling but deliberate form of expression rather than a plan to commit violence.
After police arrested him in November last year, Khan claimed that the videos were not intended to threaten anyone. “It was never an intention to threaten him. This is my character, this is how I act in my videos,” he said, adding that the gun-like sounds—“pop, pop, pop”—are a consistent feature of his content.
Implications for online threats and public discourse
The case highlights the evolving legal line between provocative online content and genuine threats. Prosecutors stressed that the language and imagery used in social media posts can carry real-world consequences, especially when tied to public figures involved in politically charged topics like immigration and national identity. The verdict may influence jurors in future cases where online bravado intersects with potential violence and public safety concerns.
What happens next
With the guilty verdict delivered, Khan now faces sentencing proceedings. The court will consider the severity of the threats, Khan’s intent, and the potential risk his online persona posed to public figures and the public. The outcome will serve as a benchmark for authorities dealing with the stability of online expressions and the boundary between entertainment and intimidation.
