England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Re 'Y' children (Findings of Fact as to Radicalisation) Part 1

		Royal Courts of Justice
		Friday, 19th August 2016

This judgment was delivered under some pressure of time on the afternoon of the last day of the fixture, and the court had to sit late to complete it even so. On reading this draft the judge concluded that a fuller explanation needed to be given of the background and process. The judge has corrected errors pointed out post judgment.
The judge has not altered the conclusions.
Please note that it must be read in conjunction with the interim outcome hearing on 24th August 2016.

MRS. JUSTICE PARKER:

The hearing and the context

1. For the last five days I have been hearing part of a fact-finding dispute in proceedings both in wardship and pursuant to s 31 Children Act 1989.
2. It concerns three children, a girl, J, just about to be 16, and boys F, just coming up to 14, and L, just coming up to 10 and a half.
3. There are three adult older children, a son, A, 31, and daughters R, 25, and B, 23. The six children are the children of AB and his, sadly, deceased first wife, who is said not to have survived an operative delivery of L.
4. I am dealing with discrete issues in respect of the assertion that the children are being brought up in a radicalised Islamic household, and have themselves been subjected to and inculcated into harmful attitudes, exposed to harmful statements and images, have been isolated, are at potential risk of dangerous activities, and that advanced plans were made for the whole family to leave this country to join the Islamic State, although thwarted by the security services.
5. The father and mother both originated from Asian families settled in east Africa. The father, now 54, came to this country with parents as a refugee from the Amin regime in Uganda as a child. He and the children are all of the Islamic/ Muslim faith.
6. Radicalisation cases have only come to the forefront of the court's attention during the last two and a half years, particularly since the escalation of troubles in the Middle East with the Syrian conflict and the rise of the Islamic State, called as well by various other different names. Radicalisation is not new.
7. I stress that the courts see cases where religion is said to be harmfully impressed on children, or provides a harmful environment or lifestyle for them, as in cases of other religions as well. I have professional experience of childcare litigation concerning fundamentalist Christian sects and certain Hindu and Jewish groups, for example. I recognise also that the UK has not been immune from sectarian Christian violence both historically and recently.
8. I repeat, as I have said to the parties, that not only do I realise how sensitive is this case, but how difficult are issues which concern freedom of thought, religion and expression; and personal autonomy. At the same time I have to look at s.31 of the Children Act in respect of care proceedings now presently in being in respect of the three index children. This case is about significant harm or the risk thereof and child welfare in respect of young people who cannot truly decide on their political and religious beliefs, and crucially, activities stemming therefrom.

The background

9. There are, historically, various records of social services intervention and concerns in this family, and the father is said not always to have been co-operative with intervention. He is asserted to have suffered mental health problems and in the quite distant past, probably 1982, to have been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, although this has not been confirmed and his functioning since does not have the hallmarks of a major delusional disorder.
10. There is also asserted to be a history of domestic violence by him against both wives, and he is said to have reacted with violence against persons in authority with whom he disagreed. Complaints of violence /over chastisement were made by the three older children more than once and withdrawn. The father denies those allegations. The two girls are said to have requested removal from home at one stage. All three of the children now adults were placed on child protection plans by a Local Authority in the Midlands, although I am not told of any previous proceedings.
11. The father was convicted of an assault on A in 1999. He has sought to justify what happened when asked by those assessing him in these proceedings. He was sentenced to 18 months probation, but is said not to have co-operated in a domestic violence programme, and to have served a two-month prison term as a result.
12. The father contracted a second marriage during his first wife's life time but that came to an end when he was convicted in 2002 of rape or attempted rape (it is not clear which) of his second wife. He asserts his innocence of either offence. He was sentenced to a four-year term of imprisonment from which he was released in 2005 and remains a sexual offender under supervision.
13. The index children were at some time taken out of state education and placed in a Muslim school but the father could not afford the fees; he said he was homeschooling them but seems to have done so ineffectively. At the time when proceedings commenced they had not been in mainstream education for over a year. As a result of these proceedings, he undertook to place them back in the Islamic school in September 2015. This was done but not maintained and they have been at local state schools since January 2016.
14. I stress that I have not been asked to and am not making any findings about these matters. They appear to have been insufficient to warrant proceedings in the past and may or may not have relevance at another stage, whether interim or final.
15. The father has been a single parent for 10 years. His second wife did not live with him and the children. He claims to have married a third wife in 2008 who remains in Pakistan and whom he visits, when I assume the children are looked after by their siblings, since I am told that none of them have met her.
16. This appears to be a multi-issue case where the allegations of radicalisation and risk of removal to a war zone provide the catalyst for and justify intervention.

The proceedings

17. On 20 March 2015, the three adult children and the three index children were stopped at the ferry port of Harwich on 20^th March 2015 for reasons into which I have not enquired. I do not intend to do so. The remit of the officers is wide and it would be unhelpful for me to speculate why this family came to their attention. The father was not with them and the reasons for that and what his intentions were have been examined. A propaganda/terrorist video is said to have been found on A's phone.
18. As a result of the stop and search, and interviews of the three adults, the father's home was searched and various materials were found.
19. The local authority commenced proceedings in wardship on 26 March 2015 on the basis of the police concern about the father's believed radicalisation and intention to travel with the children to Syria. Orders were obtained preventing removal from the jurisdiction, and supporting orders made including for removal of passports, which remain in force. The wardship case was transferred to the High Court in London, and was heard by several different judges.
20. After an initial assessment the local authority concluded that the risks were sufficient to justify care proceedings, which were issued on 11 September 2015. It asserted that s 31 was satisfied by

a. Failure to educate the children properly or consistently

b. The father's association with a proscribed pro-terrorist organisation, and the asserted trip to Syria

c. Father's lack of co-operation with the local authority since the commencement of the proceedings - unwillingness to admit its officers to his home, or permit them to see the children, and that the children were unable to express their wishes and feelings freely.

d. The father's asserted history of violence against adults and children.

21. They also expressed the view that they had been unable to achieve any understanding of the children or the family. They expressed concern about the children's ability to talk freely: they seemed worried about saying the wrong thing. I note also the local authority's concern in its care application that the father may react with violence if he does not wish to comply with professional requirements. I stress that I have not I stress that I have not been asked to and am not making any findings about these matters. At that stage the local authority proposed interim foster placements for the index children.
22. The care proceedings were issued in X and were transferred by the justices' clerk to the Designated family Judge at X, who transferred them to London, where they came before the President, who had dealt with some of the wardship hearings. On 30 September 2016 he assigned both the wardship and the care proceedings to me.
23. The case first came before me on 9 October 2015. By then the father seemed to have changed his approach, and expressed himself willing to adhere to the expectations of both the local authority and the Court. The local authority did not pursue its stated intention to seek an interim care order on the basis of removal to foster care. The father gave a number of promises by way of enforceable undertaking not to involve himself with demonstrations and rallies, to educate the children, to co-operate with social services and to introduce the children to the Sufi school of Islam which he asserted is its 'mildest' branch. I made orders preventing the father from leaving the jurisdiction, and ordered that their passports continued to be held. I made a supervision order, and gave directions. The local authority selected RX, a practising Muslim cleric who provides advice on religious and cultural matters and who has considerable experience of radicalisation to assist the Local Authority with a risk assessment of the family, and I approved this.
24. At a further hearing on 15 December 2015 I extended the timescale for the hearing of the care proceedings to 35 weeks to IRH on 28 April 2016, and 37 weeks to final hearing if necessary, on the basis that RX's work would take the case outside the 26 week limit as he required until 18 March 2016 to prepare his report. The children remained living with their father. I permitted the local authority's application for a psychiatric report on the father, recording that the court took the view that the issues included-

a. Any risks posed by the father

b. The family's functioning

c. The capacity of the father to care for the children

d. The father's ability to manage the children

e. The father himself in respect of the support services he may require in relation to his parenting

f. The influence from others that may cause the children harm.

25. Dr M reported on 3^rd March 2016 that there was no sign of any symptoms which might lead him to conclude that the father suffers from a psychotic or personality disorder. His historic symptoms leading to the diagnosis were quite probably linked to then cannabis use.
26. RX's first report concluded with the view that although there had been exposure to radical/extremist beliefs in this family they were present in some family members more than others. He was most concerned about the father but the risks were overall manageable and could be dealt with by education as to the true philosophy of Islam and exposure to different ideas. He noted that the father had been co-operative and seemingly helpful in contrast to his reported attitude to the local authority.
27. An order made on 18 April 2016 by Roderic Wood J when I was on circuit recorded that the local authority told the judge that it was likely to propose at the final hearing that the children remain in the care of the father and that no public law orders would be sought. The local authority was directed to provide its final evidence by 27 April 2016.
28. Just prior to that date the local authority learnt that the police had on 21 April 2016 searched the father's new home (he had recently moved) and found a number of items, mostly saved electronically on his or R's devices. The family computers, mobile phones and electronic devices have now been subjected to a very in-depth assessment.
29. At the pre-hearing review on 6 May 2016 the local authority sought an adjournment of the five day final hearing listed for 16 May 2016 in order to assimilate this new material and to seek an update from RX. I reluctantly vacated the hearing and listed the case for one day on 18 May. At that hearing, I listed the case for five days during my vacation sitting in the last two weeks of August.
30. At the PHR listed on 5 August 2016, I gave directions for updating evidence. The local authority had filed their lengthy Scott Schedule and for the first time, in items 19 onwards, sought findings of fact against A, R and B in respect of meetings with members of a proscribed organisation, images on the mobile phone and other devices and, in particular, in respect of the alleged attempted removal to Syria. B was at court, A and R were not. The father's counsel Miss George submitted to me, and I thought that she was right, that it would be necessary for the three young people to be made parties to these proceedings in order to resist any findings of fact sought against them. I joined them as interveners but declined to adjourn. I expressed the view, repeated at this hearing, that I would not make any findings against them in the absence of representation, in view of the shortness of time before the hearing. I urged B to try to find a representative and to persuade A to do so also. I also declined to adjourn in order to permit the father to seek expert evidence as to whether the electronic material had only been saved on devices as opposed to opened, and whether any of could have arrived without being searched for; a mammoth task. I ruled that a way must be found to deal with these points, and thus it has proved as the local authority have called police expert Mr T to assist.
31. Mr. Poole and Ms George have represented their clients on almost every occasion before me. Miss George has now returned the case to Mr. de Burgos, as a senior member of her chambers, after I heard the final directions hearing, taking the view that the issues were so serious that this needed a practitioner of Mr. de Burgos's experience.
32. The children have a Cafcass guardian, CG, who replaced the previous guardian when the care proceedings were issued. Cafcass has not played any part in this fact-finding hearing, but has been closely involved since the inception of wardship proceedings. Ms Logan of Cafcass Legal appears for this judgment in the absence of Mr Hinchliffe, whose case this is.
33. I am most grateful to all advocates for their professionalism and skill in this difficult case and particularly to Mr de Burgos for his persuasive, calm and thoughtful presentation, on which I have reflected at length.
34. The role of the oldest girl, R has been called into question, particularly as a result of what had been found on her electronic devices. The father says that he has taken and implemented a decision that she should not be permitted any access contact with the index children. She married about a year ago and is now living elsewhere.
35. All the children, as will be apparent from the chronology I have given so far, are still living at home and CG advised 9 months ago that there was insufficient reason for them to be removed.
36. As a result of the material that was obtained from the second police raid, which appeared to demonstrate links with Islamic state and a proscribed organisation which supports it, and his further interviews with the family, which include the index children, RX, has revised his view that the risks of radicalisation are relatively low. In April 20016 he re-interviewed the father about his Twitter feed account. He now assesses the risk as being higher and particularly high in respect of the two younger children. He concludes by saying that there had been a "huge radicalisation element in the lives of the Y family for many years". He came to that view as a result not only of the new material, but the inconsistent and evasive answers of the girls, and the flippant and dismissive response of the boys and other evasions as well. He is concerned, in particular, about defensiveness, denials and failure to engage with the issues which he raised, which support very strongly, in his estimation, that there has been full engagement with the very worrying material found on the family electronic devices, and alignment with the radicalised sentiments endorsed in and by such material. He considers that the younger children in particular have been put under pressure not to admit to what they know, although they recognise its serious importance and, possibly, adverse effect on the family. He regards that as a process of radicalisation, namely, the recognition that certain activities exist, that they are not generally acceptable and maybe illegal and, therefore, there is a closing of ranks, dissembling and a failure to acknowledge what is really going on in the family. In his view - he does not put it in those exact words, but it is the impact of what he says – that gives rise to further isolation of the children from the general mainstream of the society in which they live, a cleaving to the family, and a general distortion of their thoughts, wishes and feelings.
37. I have already expressed the view that I have to be very careful in delineating what is acceptable and not acceptable and how very wide the spectrum is of views that I acknowledge can be held within families without transgressing into s.31 territory. This case concerns radicalisation in the sense of causing children to adopt "them and us" views in relation to other members of society, other religions and other racial groups, defiance of the law, secrecy, to which I have already referred, the risk of becoming involved in violent activities is support of political/religious aims, and the risk of harm to others. I am not an agent of the security services in this enquiry, but I have to look at what the effect on these children may be if they are at risk of harm.
38. I asked counsel a few days ago to reduce the lengthy Scott Schedule - I am not complaining or criticising but it does run to a number of pages - to one sheet of A4 and I shall use the list of seven questions, although the ultimate question really goes to disposal rather than fact finding. I shall use the one-page document as my template.

The hearing

39. I heard evidence from DS, RT, RX, an anonymous undercover officer whom I shall refer to as "Z", and the father.
40. DS, has written one letter and made 13 statements with copious exhibits, demonstrating the material which has been examined. Z had made one statement, as had RT, and the father had made four. RX had provided three detailed assessments. I also read the local authority assessments and the guardians' reports and the psychiatric report, although I did not hear oral evidence from those witnesses.
41. DS's statements contain almost entirely hearsay- that is not a criticism, it is his job to be collation and reporting officer, and his evidence was not essentially challenged. It was not suggested that he was either untruthful or mistaken.
42. I have four lever-arch files and I will only have the opportunity to touch on the contents in the course of this ruling. I am, in fact, out-of-hours applications judge this evening, which is a reason, amongst others, not to be able to deal with everything.
43. B has been at court on every occasion, and throughout this hearing. A had to go back to work earlier this week. I made it clear to both that I thought that they need legal advice and B is in the process of trying to access it, but it was not obtained between the hearing, which took place two weeks ago, and the commencement of this case this week and probably for obvious reasons. A now understands, or perhaps has understood for some time, that it would be helpful for him to be represented as well. I did not require them to gave evidence: in fact positively discouraged it. I gave the opportunity to cross-examine, and to address me.
44. I said from the outset that it was quite impossible to proceed to deal with any potential findings against them. Two days have now been set aside in October to conclude that part of the case.

Findings sought and issues raised

45. The question at para.1 of the one- page document is

"Did the father plan to take the children to Islamic State and thereby expose them to significant harm?"

46. That might need to be clarified. The suggestion is not that his plan was to expose them to significant harm, but that it might have exposed them to significant harm.
47. Mr. Poole invited me to make that finding against the father alone, and to deal with the findings sought against the adult children in October. I cannot. The questions of who the trip was planned for and by whom, are intertwined. The father relies on their account that the trip was innocent. The suggestion that a removal was planned by the adult children but the father was ignorant is perhaps the least likely explanation and it has not so far been put forward.
48. Therefore, I shall not deal with question 1 save that Mr. de Burgos submits to me that there is no case to answer and that I am able to dismiss this allegation now. I agree that if I thought that there was nothing in the local authority's concerns on the basis of the evidence presented so far, I ought to say so at an initial stage.
49. I have come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case from which I could draw the inference that a journey to Syria was planned, although I might be persuaded away from that conclusion by other evidence. Mr. de Burgos has pointed to a number of features which he says might undermine the conclusion that what father intended to do was to facilitate a removal to Syria. But all of those are matters which need to be weighed in the balance and dealt with on the basis of evidence and proper assessment of the facts.
50. The evidence is that, after the siblings were stopped, accounts were given in interview that they were intending to make a short weekend trip to the Netherlands and had travelled by ferry to the Hook of Holland in order for the children to be taken to a particular play area, "TunFun". The evidence of the father – and also from the interviews and statements of the older children - is that he had been intending to join them or to accompany them, but he became unwell and so he could not. A conversation is recorded by the social worker, in which Mr. Poole asserts that the father had always intended to join them later and relies on this as indicating an inconsistency in the father's account. I do not think it is clear; what he says is ambiguous. It is notable, however, that he booked the trip three days only before they were due to depart. That, Mr. Poole suggests, is of some significance in itself as the later the booking, the less likely it was to come to the attention of the authorities.
51. The plan was that they would sleep in the car on the beach; it was March. The family had never done this before, but, apparently, they did have blankets with them; or alternatively they might to go to a hotel. No one, I am told, - or at least the father - has any information as to whether sleeping in a parked car on a beach is lawful in Holland or whether that is likely to come to the attention of the authorities there and it is submitted by Mr. Poole that the plan is vague and unlikely in the circumstances.
52. There are a number of other matters which give rise to concern. They had an itinerary with them which Mr. Poole submits is written in stilted and unusual terms. It is not the kind of list of activities that one might expect to see, and has detail, particularly in relation to timings, which seems, objectively, unnecessary for this sort of trip. It is suggested that this is a kind of decoy document, intended to distract the authorities from the real purpose and to support the case that this was a weekend jaunt. Isis documentation online giving guidance about a planned journey to Syria via northern Europe suggests that such documentation might be useful and also suggests obtaining return tickets, so the existence of returns does not help. The father does not have very much money. The passports had been obtained in contemplation of this trip many months before, costing over £200. Yet the journey had not been booked. There are various other expenses, such as the ferry, which cost over £400. The suggestion is that this was a very unusually expensive trip to make for what was going to be just a day and a morning in Holland, for the purposes of a trip to the play park. The necessity or desirability of visiting that venue has not really been established.
53. Further the father was unable to give a convincing reason for the presence of a Turkish phrase book in the property since the family had never been to Turkey. In the father's house there was found a list signed with the signature of R and there was another list obtained made by B, headed "Things to get". The day before the trip was made the father went to two branches of a camping shop, one in Area T and one in Area S, and spent over £600 on equipment. That equipment has considerable correspondence with a "suggested equipment list" in another document called "Hijrah (emigration) to the Islamic State", emanating from supporters of Islamic State which is to be found online, the possession of which is a criminal offence. I have been given a copy of that document in the hope that I am not transgressing by its being in my possession. I have tried to protect the parties and they have accepted this by ensuring that the document's copies are numbered and are retained, will be returned, and are viewed only within the courtroom.
54. Mr. Poole has pointed out the similarity and the order of items referred to in the list with R's signature on it. R has said that the list is not in her handwriting and cannot explain why the signature is on it. Some of the items on the list might be expected to be on any list for an activity holiday, but some are rather specific, such as solar charger advised by the Islamic State's document and knee or elbow protectors (although an explanation is given for that) and other items. No one has explained what this list was, who made it or why it was in the father's house.
55. The father's assertion has consistently been that the trip to the outfitting stores was to provide equipment for a camping holiday in Scotland in the summer. He said that he had spent time in Scotland when growing up and had made such trips then. The family had never previously been camping. He could not explain why this shopping trip had been made the day before the departure of the children, when he was unwell: too unwell to travel to Holland. In answer to a later question from B as to whether he had made a mistake and the trip had been planned for Easter rather than the summer, he said that he thought it might have been: he could not really remember. His explanation for going to the Area S outlet was that the Area T shop had not had one item: he thought the camping stove. In fact the majority of the items were bought in the second store. Mr Poole suggests that two shops were used to distract attention from the extent and nature of the purchases.
56. I will need to look at the totality of the evidence in due course, but, taking the rest of the evidence in this case and looking at it as a whole, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the departure from the jurisdiction was not for innocent purposes. Both B and A however support the father's account that this was an innocuous short holiday (R has declined to appear and to give evidence, although joined as an intervener). I therefore cannot answer the question posed on the material presented to me and the father's evidence alone. I cannot separate out the need for B and A to give evidence on their own account as interveners who wish to care for the children, either as primary or secondary carers, and the father's need for them to give evidence in support of his own case, and it would be wrong for me to make any decisions at the moment.
57. Question 2 is

"Did the father cause or risk causing the children significant harm by exposing them to radical preachers and/or followers?"

The first sub-question is

"(a) is the father a longstanding affiliate/respected member of ALM?"

58. DS told me in evidence that in its various guises ALM (Al Muhajiroun) has been a proscribed organisation since 2006. It supports and has links with Islamic State. It is a political/ religious organisation. It has had a number of previous names/identities. (The current name is also spelt in different ways). It supports the establishment and maintenance of the Caliphate and its expansion potentially worldwide. It encourages and supports travel to the Middle East for the purpose of supporting Islamic State in armed conflict. It regards secular, national law as invalid and abhorrent as an offence to the Almighty, and seeks the introduction of Sharia law. A number of its members have travelled or attempted to travel to Syria. Photographs of members brandishing weapons, taken, presumably in Syria, because the members have gone there, have been published online and were found on Y family devices. Members engage in public protests. They are often videoed and the videos are posted online to promote the group's activity in which there has been violence against others. Members have been convicted of attempted murder, threats to kill, assaults, and violent disorder.
59. Various ALM associates have been convicted of terrorism offences at the Central Criminal Court.
60. I have seen a great many papers removed from the father's home on the two raids together with drawings, photos and videos. There are many references to ALM.
61. The father's case is that he knows a prominent associate of ALM but not intimately, and that he does not support his aims or those of ALM or its predecessors.
62. DS told me that police intelligence indicated the father had engaged in a number of ALM related activities (or its predecessor's) from 2008 to 2015. That is hearsay but it is backed up by the evidence about attendance at demonstrations and meetings, and by his interest in ALM shown by the online material.
63. I have heard evidence from Z, who also gave evidence in the trial at the Central Criminal Court. He told me about a number of meetings that he had had with the father in various ALM associated contexts, and his knowledge of the father's other dealings with HA.
64. I am satisfied on all the evidence that the father is closely associated with ALM. I accept that he was not charged along with those recently convicted. I accept that there is no evidence that he has spoken or written in public on its behalf. However he has supported it online, and it has a significant online presence which I accept is important for the promotion of its ideas. I do not know whether he is a member, I do not know whether one can be a member of an organisation such as ALM, I doubt very much whether it has a list of members, or whether it has a joining fee or anything of that kind. Z told me that the father is well known to the membership. He is not part of the management or governance insofar as there is one - the 'inner echelons' as it was termed in the hearing- and, therefore, not one of the decision makers, but he is intimately known within and loosely part of the organisation.
65. Sub-question (b) is whether ALM is a proscribed organisation, which it is accepted it is.
66. The next sub-question is "(c) Did the father take the children to inappropriate ALM demonstrations?" There were two particular demonstrations. He took J (then aged 9) and F (then aged 7) to one in 2009 in London attended by HA. The second was a demonstration outside the Pakistani Embassy after the Pakistan Army had become involved with students in "The Red Mosque" incident. I have seen photographs of the father standing next to HA, outside the Embassy with F and L. The two boys were holding a placard of which the father said he was not able to tell me the origin, which refers to the Pakistan Army as, essentially, "the devil". There are other placards next to the boys. I note one, relevant to another issue, supporting the introduction of Sharia law for Pakistan, because, the father told me, the students in the Red Mosque had called for Sharia law in Pakistan.
67. I recognise that some people take children on political demonstrations (although not usually to events where violence might be predicted) and persuade their children to carry placards. Sometimes children are too young even to take persuading, sometimes the placards are put in the child's pram. It could be said that the children, who probably do not understand in the least the point of the demonstration, are being used in order to put over and support adult views, in a way which could be seen as manipulative and even abusive. I recognise that this is not in any way an activity which is limited to any particular social or religious group. What the father involved the boys in was not illegal, and as a one-off would have been unlikely to have led to any child welfare intervention. However, the demonstration was linked with ALM, and it was not appropriate, in my view, for the boys to be actively involved in such a demonstration or such an organisation, knowing the views expressed by members and the possible consequences of the expression of those views: a public disturbance over which the father had no control, or the expression of harmful views. The father said these were peaceful protests but he was not to know that they would be so. Most importantly it demonstrates the influences to which he has wished to or at least been prepared to expose the boys. It is part of the overall picture.
68. The next sub -question therefore is (d),

"Did the father expose the boys to harmful views at ALM- inspired talks and take them to talks given by individuals later convicted and/or charged with terrorism offences?"

69. The father was an attendee at Da'wah (proselytization or outreach) stalls. These are booths displaying literature in public areas, and not confined to ALM. Z told me that from his knowledge someone who attended such a stall who showed a particular interest in extremist themes might, after several visits, be invited to attend an evening meeting, once a degree of familiarity and common ground had been established between the stall minder and the enquirer. That was how he had come to be invited to evening events. The father told me that all were welcome at the stalls, of whatever age or religion, men or women, and this demonstrated how innocuous they were. He also said that Z had been welcome when it was thought that he was genuine, but would not have been had it been known that he was an undercover policemen. The father could not explain why this would be, if there was nothing wrong with the stalls. Z told me, and I accept, that the Da'wah stall attended by the father, to which at one time he took the boys, linked with ALM. At one time he took the boys, but stopped doing so. Z does not know why he stopped taking the boys, but it was at about the time ALM had spread the news that supporters were at risk of care proceedings.
70. I conclude that the stalls were used as recruitment tools where people were given literature supporting ALM's aims, and tested out, from which they were drawn into the inner circle as and when it was thought appropriate.
71. Photographs of the father with ALM affiliates have been recovered from telephones of those persons. I accept that the father attended other protests with London ALM affiliates with many senior associates.
72. Z told me that the father had been to a number of meetings with the boys, probably about five, at a local church hall. These were small meetings, 30 people only, where theological matters were discussed. The father is devoutly religious and it seems to me to be well within the acceptable spectrum of behaviour for the children to go to meetings - even if they may not be terribly interested and may not actually understand what is going on - which may express views about religious practices, even though they may be of more interest to the adults than the children. Those attendances do not seem to me to be of serious significance in themselves, but ALM members, later convicted of terrorist offences were present, and the father could not have predicted exactly what views would be expressed. It is all part of a pattern.
73. The father attended a meeting at Ramadan 2014 and two in 2015 with the two younger boys, at which many of the same ALM personnel were present. During the summer, in Ramadan, marquees are set up in the garden of at least one venue, maybe more, in order that celebrants can meet to enjoy the post-fast meal, socialise, and speak about their religious feelings, none of which is, in my view, exceptional. At the 2014 meeting, the worst that was said was a suggestion by a speaker that people should be grateful for the existence of the Islamic State. After that meeting the father was introduced to Z by a prominent ALM member, and together they asked Kamal for a lift.
74. At the 20 June 2015 meeting, the speaker spoke of the gate of heaven reserved for those who had fought Jihad. Again a number of ALM affiliates, some of who have since been convicted of preparing terrorist acts and preparing to join Islamic State, were present.
75. The meeting on 4 July last year, at a different venue, had given rise to a considerable degree of investigation. Z was invited to a celebration of the birth of a child in the marquee, which took place from mid-evening onwards, which overlapped with and included a celebration meal. The fast ends as dusk is coming on, so in mid-summer people began to eat about 9 o'clock at night. Talks were to be given from 11 o'clock onwards. The father arrived just about 11 o'clock with his two younger boys. There were some very "animated" speeches. The first speaker's underlying message was for attendees to join the Islamic State. The second contained some very inflammatory statements, such as a defence of the killing of Trooper Lee Rigby and other similar plainly radicalised statements. This speech involved the mocking of a Sheikh who had shown sympathy for the deceased soldier on television. The second speaker asserted that Islam was spread by the sword and was not a soft religion about peace. A number of ALM members of note were present, including three men who were the subject of convictions this week.
76. Z was clear in his evidence to me that the father and the two boys had arrived just as the speeches were about to start and that he did not leave with the children before they ended. Z said that he was sitting at the back; the father says that he was sitting at the back as well. The father said, although the timing of the events was not clear and his account developed as he went on, that they had arrived late and were having a meal at the back of the room and he was not paying attention to the speeches. It had not been put to Z that the father was distracted by a meal or, indeed, that they or anyone else was eating. Z had told me, although the point was not explored with him, because its importance was not realised at the time, that the eating was concluded by then. He told me that respectful attention was given by the audience to the content of these speeches and he would have been aware if the father had left at any time. The father said that he had left because of the glorification of the killer, then said that he only thought that he may have done so, then wavered again and said that he was not certain of the time in any event. He appeared to be prevaricating and evading the questions in his answers, which were unconvincingly inconsistent.
77. The father also told me that the boys had been playing with other children outside, but then conceded that after midnight or thereabouts that that would not have happened and that he was referring to other occasions, for instance, at the church hall when there might have been an opportunity to play with other children. He asserted that there were other children at the July meeting. Z told me that children would attend the post Ramadan meal and the church hall but it was not put to him that there had been other children at this late-night meeting. Whether there were or not is not relevant to this case bearing in mind the context. The father's suggestion that he arrived for the celebration in order to eat does not fit in with the timing of the event. 11 o'clock was late for the boys and whether they had been fasting or not he must have fed them earlier.
78. I have come to the conclusion, on all the evidence, that the father arrived in order to hear the speeches. That was the purpose of his attendance. As Z told me the attendees close to the organisation's hub would have been made aware that this was what the meeting was about. The father was, at the very least, indifferent to the effect on his boys of hearing what were likely to be firebrand / inflammatory speeches; and the most likely explanation is that he wanted them to be exposed to those expressions of opinion and belief.
79. I bear in mind Mr. de Burgos' submission that Z made a very long statement for the purposes of the criminal trial and the 4 July meeting was part of its focus of the criminal trial, and he must have been paying attention to a number of different individuals. I accept that, but his evidence was very clear, whereas the father's asserted recollection was unimpressively unclear. Sometimes, of course, lack of clarity can be a pointer towards veracity, but in this case I do not find it to be so. Z has experience of giving evidence in the courts, as we now know. In his particular occupation - there is no doubt about that – he is trained to observe and to make a mental as well as, subsequently, written notes. He gave his evidence without any sense of overstatement, calmly and factually without any kind of hesitation which might lead to lack of confidence in that evidence. There was none of the dogmatism with which people sometimes cover up uncertainty or invention. It was not put to him that he was untruthful. I am convinced by his evidence and am certain that the father was aware of the planning of this meeting and had made a deliberate effort to attend with the children. He did not have to be there. He does not suggest that one of the older children was unable to babysit.
80. The next question is "Is the father a supporter/acquaintance of HA, convicted on (date) of inviting … others to join the Islamic State?" I cannot accept the father's statement that he has only casually met HA on a very few occasions. I cannot say how close their relationship is, but it is very much closer than he has accepted, very close indeed in my estimate, which does not necessarily mean a personal friendship, but points to shared aims and goals.
81. I have also seen photographs of the father at other demonstrations with HA. There are other references to him being in HA's company. He told me that he has only met him two or three times and that, really, he is just someone whom he greets as he would any other person, but I conclude on all the evidence (and also see below) that the association is much stronger than that.
82. One particular matter of great significance is that, when HA was charged and bailed, the father tweeted a message, and along the lines of "thank heavens that he had been given his freedom". He told me in evidence that, although he did not know HA very well, he believed him to be innocent of the charges and, therefore, wanted to support his release from incarceration. He could not explain why he took that view if he was not a supporter. The father has also re-tweeted ALM tweets and pro-ALM tweets including a message of support in an article written by another in which threats were made to British security. There is a photograph on line on one of the family devices of him against a black-flag against an image of the White House. B had images of HA on her telephone.
83. Mr. de Burgos has attempted to persuade me that this indicates a degree of gullibility of the father in respect of HA's activities and that he simply did not enquire into, or accept the reality, of his affiliations. It goes further than that and shows support of HA, and his aims and his beliefs.
84. Towards the end of his assessment RX had a very difficult conversation with the father in connection with HA. The father was upset that RX had mentioned that HA had been at a university talk. As he was leaving the meeting, he became angry and said, "HA has never encouraged violence, he never told Michael Adebolajo to kill Lee Rigby". He said it very forcefully and then he said, "If you think HA is doing wrong, as your Muslim brother, you should correct him".
85. RX originally told me in his report and evidence that the father had said, "If you want, I can give you his number, you should tell him." On reflection in the witness box he conceded that he may have recorded this wrongly- he had closed his laptop and was no longer making notes of this conversation. He may have said "Well, okay, give his number to me and I will tell him". Mr. de Burgos suggests that that completely undermines the previous statement attributed to the father. I do not read it like that at all. The father made a clear statement in defence of HA and then he challenged RX to challenge Mr. HA. It does not matter whether it was RX or the father who referred to obtaining Mr. HA's telephone number.
86. RX was frightened by the father's attitude, demeanour and voice during this interview.
87. Related also to this evidence and the conclusions that I have drawn is another reference to the killer of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo. When the father's home was first searched a letter was found from this gentleman from prison; whether it was an original or whether it was a copy does not matter. I suspect that, in the circumstances, it may very well have been a document made available to a number of people within this circle. It is a letter which is covered by r.39 of the Prison Regulations, which is intended to go to the legal representative. It is, in fact, quite a strongly worded letter making various strong comments about religious matters. It is both assertive and rambling and is quite closely written. It makes reference to a number of religious concepts, using a number of Arabic words, and also it makes various aggressive comments as to the role of various people in English political life, generally, and those who are connected with the Islamic religion. The father accepts that it was found in his house. He told RX that he did not know how he had come by it. He at first told me the same thing. Then he said that he had been given it, but could not remember who by. When asked again, he said that it had been a man. He could not remember who or the circumstances, just that he had been told or encouraged to read it. He said that he had not read it himself. He could not remember any conversation with the donor, such as, "Why are you giving this to me; what this is about; what am I going to get from this; what is its importance?" and so on. He cannot say why he kept this document, although he says that he did not read it and never gave it any thought afterwards. I do not accept this explanation. He must have known about the contents of and welcomed this letter in order to both have and retain it.
88. The next matter which relates to para.2 is that three of the men named by Z as having been at the 4 July meeting and who have been convicted of terrorism offences, are named as insured to drive the car which the children took to Holland. One of the features which has been examined is the fact that the original car on the booking was the family car, but it was taken into a garage for repairs the day before the trip was due to take place. It was still in the garage so another car was lent which belonged to the garage. I do not know who the owner is or the registered keeper, but these three men are registered to drive it. This is a matter which will need more enquiry when I come to look at this issue once again next month or the month after next.
89. Although Mr. Poole has not specifically made this point, I might be asked to consider whether the garage car had been used because it was less likely to draw attention to the children, in any event, but that is all for another day, as well as permitting the father to join the family later in his own car.
90. Various photographs emerged from the search of the family devices. I have a number of separate photographs of the children and the father, dressed in what looks like Middle Eastern style red-and-white headgear, in the case of both the children and father, with their faces partly obscured by the cloth and holding what I am told are ornamental swords. The adult children said these had been purchased by the family as a set at a boot fair, or similar outlet, and to be ornamental only. The two younger children were very little when these photographs were taken and I suppose they may not have been aware of the significance, as it is asserted by Mr. Poole to be, of this style of dress. The father says also that this cannot be connected with Islamic State because it was not then in existence. Mr Poole submits that that this is a style of dress associated very much with Islamic fighters, and has been for some time, and that posing with weapons is very much a radicalised style. Mr. de Burgos accepts that this style of dress and presentation would be regarded, and rightly so, as extremely culturally offensive if worn at a fancy-dress show or party, as to many people's eyes it will have very significant associations with terrorism and with politically and religiously motivated violence.
91. I cannot go so far as to say that the photographs of the two younger children, in themselves, would have caused them harm at the time, but it is quite possible that viewing them online later as older children might have done so and have given them expectations as to how they are expected to behave, what beliefs they are supposed to have and how they are supposed to treat other people. There are pictures of the older children, including J, when much younger, also in similar poses, in similar attire and with similar weapons. There are pictures of A with a gun, which he says was taken when he was working on someone's home and he simply asked whether he could pose with that particular gun, an air rifle, as a joke. There are photographs of the father with a BB gun, also in a very similar pose. These are strongly reminiscent of the poses in photographs of ALM members posted online, referred to above. There are photographs of other weapons, the significance of which, the family has not been able to explain. RX told me that he perceived a clear association with the graphic execution scenes online, and so, independently, do I.
92. There are also photographs of the two younger boys with, on the right hand, the forefinger extended and lifted up. RX told me that there is a point at the holiest moment of Prayer where this gesture, the "shahada" is made with the hand held low, in order to signify the oneness and uniqueness of the Almighty, and after ablutions preceding the Prayer it may be made with the hand held up. RX told me, however, that, as of late, in these difficult times, it has come to have a stronger significance. The word "tawheed" is used in the prayer which means "oneness". A word "maakiyah" has recently been added by radicals which refers to the sovereignty of power. It is a political/religious statement which speaks to the assertion all matters are for the Almighty, and particularly the law. RX said that this has particular connotations for the acceptance of a secular Rule of Law. I note that the father has been associated with promotion of Sharia law and the rejection of secular law within the demonstration photograph and also in messages he has written or forwarded. RX told me that the forefinger gesture is often used by suicide bombers as a prelude to the explosion of the device.
93. The father said, in his response to the Scott Schedule, that he had no idea why the children had held their fingers up in this way to be photographed. He said first that he did not know why he had taken such photographs. He then said, following RX's evidence, that he thought that the children had been copying him in the sign of reverence for the Almighty. RX had also told me that his experience with his own children is that, even before they may understand the significance of the gesture, they may wish to copy it, and he would, as a Muslim parent, introduce them to the concept of monotheism, but this was not an explanation given by the father initially, although he told me that he had been reminded that the children had copied him when hearing RX's evidence. He still could not explain the photographs, which I find of considerable significance. They are posed similarly to the fighter photographs.
94. There are other pictures of children in camouflage, with weapons. There are pictures of the father and one of the boys in what appears to be camouflage, explained as just dressing up. I have no doubt that these children have been encouraged from a very early age to adopt these postures and gestures which are linked with violence in support of political and religious belief.
95. I am afraid that I do not find that the explanation is innocent. They are not 'cute' (J's word) family photographs that many people might have. They are part of the encouragement, and it is not too strong to regard it as grooming, of the children to see themselves as political/religious warriors, and to share the father's wish for its promotion by violent means.
96. Question 4:

"Did the father cause or risk causing the children significant harm by exposing them to images and videos of the most disturbing nature held electronically and accessible to the children in the family home?"

97. Some of the material found, particularly on R's telephone, is very shocking and very disturbing indeed. It does not come from normal news sites. Father says that they might have come from Fox News, but I find it very difficult to imagine or to accept that heads in buckets, details of crucifixions, the process of execution, dead bodies and dead fighters showing, it is asserted, the joy with which they died, material relating to bombings, a man with a knife to his throat, execution quads, would be shown on normal news channels. It is not my experience of the mainstream press. I cannot say where this material came from, but the evidence that I had from RT, the technical expert relied on by the police, and his overall view, was that there had been a lot of internet searching for this kind of horrific image, particularly relating to the process of decapitation. There was particular footage, which has nothing to do with Islam or the Islamic State at all, which relates to horrors in South America. He told me that that was an indication of the kind of search that was going on and that someone in the home had had a pre-occupation with looking for this material. No-one in the family has been able to tell me who that might be. The father tells me, and I accept, of course, that, as a Muslim whose family emanates from South Asia, although via East Africa, he has an interest and a passionate commitment to finding out what is going on in the Islamic world and I quite understand that, but the material which has been downloaded does not fit with what the father told me about his focus of interest, or with the pre-occupation with terrorism, demonstrated also by books removed from the home.
98. I cannot say who in the family has downloaded this material, but it is most likely that it has been a number of them. There were images found not only on R's phone and other material on other devices as well. There is a very strong theme of there being someone in this family, or perhaps more than one someone, who has an interest in painful things being done to other people. This is not just related to terrorism. I saw a video retrieved from one of the family phones of the youngest child, who must have been seven or eight, perhaps younger, it is difficult to see. It is footage, apparently, taken by J, the child who is now nearly 16, of her younger brother being made to eat a raw chilli by his older sister, R. The young people around him seem to be totally unconcerned about the pain which it is causing him and the distress that he is showing. Anyone who has inadvertently bitten into a piece of raw chilli in a meal knows that it causes intense pain to the mouth, a very sensitive area. There is laughing in the background. It is not just that this was done, and it is a wholly inappropriate form of punishment, but that it does not seem to have evoked any form of sympathy or empathy at all. RX suggested that this might have been a punishment for some kind of religious transgression, but I cannot say. I am, of course, conscious that children used to have their mouths washed out with soap for swearing in the old days and I appreciate that treatment of children, which we would regard now as barbaric, was considered to be appropriate in the past. Nonetheless, the combination of features, lack of feeling for the victim, group participation in this punishment and it being filmed, no doubt for some form of record or enjoyment, gives rise to a very uncomfortable feeling indeed. It chimes with my sensation that there a nastiness about some of the attitudes in this family.
99. I am also very struck by the father's reaction to the discovery of this material. According to the father he has scarcely asked R why she has had this material on the phone, and took some time to even state that he had. The point is made by Mr. de Burgos that she is an adult and is entitled to do what she wants, but I would have thought that the father would want to enquire as to why his daughter had such interests, particularly because he is a loving father and the children have always been closely tied to the home and also, obviously, feel a high degree of responsibility for him. He does not seem to have tackled this issue at all, and the most likely explanation is that access to these kinds of images and their sharing was part of the norm. Furthermore, he told me that his little son had never told him about the chilli incident. He had not spoken to R or, indeed, any of the other children about why the video had been taken or what had been going on, or why she had punished L in this way. If that is true, it shows at the least a remarkable derogation of parental responsibility and lack of interest in what has been happening. His lack of interest strongly suggests that this was a form of punishment that was part of the norm within this family.
100. DS has told me that all the electronic devices in the family were open to all members of the family. The father said that they were password protected. RT told me that he overrode one password. I am not prepared to accept that the children did not have access to this kind of material. I cannot say for certain whether they had. There is no actual evidence that they did. It may be unlikely that they would try to break into password protected material, but it may have been very easily available.
101. It is highly likely that the children were shown it. I say that in particular because, during the family's Eid celebration, there is a video of the family in front of the cake and a particular film being shown on the television. There are photographs of the family living room decorated with the Black flag bearing the Arabic word 'shahada'. The father says that this was just part of a continuous streaming through YouTube or music that he wanted to listen to. Whether that is so, I am not going to decide, but let us assume that it is. It showed the ISIS flag and a black-clad figure against a desert background. It is very similar to some of the photographs found online and a very obvious approbation of the ISIS regime. Pro-Caliphate speeches can be heard in the background. The flag, the father accepts, which pictures the seal of the Prophet, is, as far as he knows, and as any of us know, only used by ISIS and not by any other group. So although it may incorporate a perfectly acceptable and holy image, it has very obvious connotations if shown on the screen. The children seemed to me to be looking at the screen in the photograph. The father says they were interested in the cake, but this video was very obviously there, right in front of their faces, and available to be watched. The father says that he was not interested in the background; he was merely interested in the "Nasheed", the religious songs which accompany it. I do not find that an acceptable explanation. At the very least, the father was extremely careless about what he exposed his children to, but it is far more likely that this was a form of entertainment which the family wanted to look at and was available to the younger children as well.
102. The next question is "Has the father caused or risked the children significant harm by indoctrinating the children into radical beliefs?" RX takes the view that he has. There are one or two pointers, such as L telling RX that unbelievers would go to hell. Also F had previously referred in very glowing terms to HA as a "Sheikh who is a lion and gives talks". F blamed the police for having "banged it all up" and he described that as a "fix", which RX, rightly I think, saw as being a reflection of adult language and influence. F described certain events, including the visit to the marquee, in a way which RX found "dismissive" and "carefree". This echoes the way his brother, A, has spoken to RX. RX thought this was a clear sign of the radicalisation process being present, in the sense that there was a false jollity intended to distract and mislead the enquirer about key events.
103. F, when asked the question, said very clearly and confidently that Islam was not about fighting, but that does not detract from RX's views based on other matters as to his true underlying beliefs and beliefs to which he has been exposed. That may very well have been a question to which he had been primed to respond.
104. RX was particularly concerned about the refusal of the boys, and indeed all the children, consistently, to identify their father in the headgear and sword photograph, identified by R, J and B as being "old man holding a sword". L and F also refused to identify their father. F declined to identify L in the 'chilli' video when L was being punished.
105. RX described this, and I agree, "as extremely sad". He did not think that F was unable to recognize his father. Rather, L was "unable to bring (his father's) name to his lips". RX attributed the defensiveness and lack of openness and frankness, and dissimulation, as a combination of two features: firstly, that he was so scared of losing his father and family that he had to lie to cover up and, secondly, that he had been groomed/trained into refusing to identify his father. He also identified in the older children some aspects which concerned him about their presentation. I have already referred to A's dismissiveness of any concerns, the attitude of all members of the family to weapons, the acceptability of them being in the household, and other photographs either depicting or referring to violence on line.
106. A cartoon on one of the older children's telephones is based on the classic depiction of Darwinian theories of human evolution which shows progress from ape through intermediate humanoid forms to homo sapiens. In this cartoon the Muslim progresses from human baby through various stages of maturity to a Mujahid warrior in Islamic dress who then becomes a green flying bird. The non-Muslim starts as an ape and concludes as a pig. B told RX that she did not think the content appropriate and did not identify a Mujahid as a fighter who attained freedom as represented by the green bird. RX told me that the concept of the fighter/martyr who becomes a bird is esoteric and not well known as it is generally confined to radicalised Muslims, B was familiar with the concept. This must indicate that she has been exposed to radical ideas.
107. RX was prepared to give a large benefit of the doubt in his first interviews. Before the new material was examined he was even prepared to give credence to the father's explanation when he interviewed him about his Twitter feed that he has posted pro-Islamic State material online as a form of protest against the intervention of the court in the children proceedings. He now does not accept that explanation. In my view that justification is lame and incredible. In any event it shows the father's mindset.
108. RX's overall view with regard to risk, expressed in the conclusion of his report, is that that the two youngest children are the worst affected of the six by the influences to which they have been subjected. He believes that B and J are two "articulate and confident young women", who need to be given the opportunity to think for themselves and, may be able to form their own views as to what they believe and what they do not. He comments however on the fact that R had given a "no comment" interview and that A's constant nonchalance does not represent him as a responsible older sibling.
109. He concludes by saying that the last conversation with AB has led him to solidify his own opinion that there has been a huge radicalising element in the lives of the Y family for a number of years and it will, no doubt, take a fair number of years to counter this ingrained ideology.
110. I accept that RX is an expert. He is an expert in the religion, as a priest, and he is an expert in radicalising elements in the religion. I accept his evidence, which seems to me soundly based upon his own knowledge and what he has been told, and to be wholly supported by the material, which I have seen, read and heard about during the course of this hearing. I agree with him.
111. The last matter which I must deal with is whether or not the father knew or should have known about the images, which are particularly serious, on R's phone, and whether he failed to protect the children from significant emotional harm by the possibility of being exposed to these images. I do not know whether he actually accessed these images himself. I suspect he did. It does not matter whether he did or he did not. I accept that the possession of this kind of material was the norm within this family. I am satisfied that the father did not protect the children from overall exposure to gruesome images, although what they were exposed to, and by whom, I cannot say.
112. I turn lastly to the question of R. The suggestion has been made that this is all down to R. She is the person who has introduced the radicalising elements into the family. I have some doubts about the veracity of some of the things that she has said to the officers at Harwich port, including whether or not she was genuinely going to Holland to have the opportunity to smoke cannabis; and whether she had cannabis with her, found in her possession, in order to smoke it in Holland or whether that was part of a decoy.
113. I do not know whether R has taken the independent decision not to appear at this court or whether she has been persuaded not to take part in these proceedings to provide a convenient scapegoat. It would be fruitless for me to direct R to appear at the next hearing. She gave a "no comment" interview. I know that she was not protected against answering questions, as the father was not protected against answering questions, by s.98 CA 1989, but I would have to give her a warning, as I did the father in this case. It is likely that that she would give me no useful information at all and she is not putting herself forward as a potential carer for the children.
114. The extent to which B and A have actually been involved in any of these activities, as opposed to being part of the environment, is something that I will assess at the next hearing.
115. This case has similarities in some ways to cases where children have been turned against the other parent by influence that used to be sometimes called "brainwashing". The similarity is in the pressures that other people bring to bear on the young and vulnerable and what ought to and can be done about it. I have no hesitation in the appropriate case in removing children from the care of one parent and placing them with another, normally through the care arrangements made through the local authority. My experience is that it works more often than not. This authority may decide to ask me to remove these children. I have no idea whether that would be the right result and I would hesitate before making such an order, but I might have to, even though, particularly where religious and cultural issues are involved, there must be a significant risk of making things worse.
116. I need the Guardian to help me with regard to that question. She expressed her view very firmly at an earlier stage when in retrospect, quite a number of participants in this case, including me, may ourselves have been gullible. RX certainly thinks, as a result of various things that he learnt after the second raid, that he had not been told the frank unvarnished truth about the mind set of this family, their true beliefs and their true motivations.
117. The father has told me that he respects this country and its traditions, that it is protected by a 'covenant of security' with Islam, so that he is not permitted to take up arms against it, and that he is deeply grateful that he and his family were given a home and welcomed here when exiled. He has been keen to stress his multi-cultural social circle as a young man, and to tell me how he played in a rock band. This may or may not be true and he may or may not feel these things, but I do not know what it would take to break the 'covenant of security'. It is quite possible that he was radicalised in prison. RX thinks so. His personality may make him susceptible to influence, as well as leading him to influence others.
118. The next question is does the father require intervention? Yes, if it may work, and if he really wants to change. I cannot make him, he is a grown-up, he has his own views and there would be no point in him paying lip service to something that he does not agree with. RX told me that it is possible for views to be changed. I appreciate that this is also a very sensitive area because, after all, who likes to think that they are wrong and who likes to think that other people know best? But it may be worth trying, I do not know, it is not for me to say at the moment.
119. The adult children also are autonomous individuals and they can decide what they want to do. J is almost 16 and maturity and self-determination, as was said in the Gillick case, is a process, it is not an either/or. One is not one day a child and the next an adult. I would find it very difficult to force these children to have any form of therapeutic or similar intervention that they did not want. The father's influence could be very important. He has put himself forward as being quite passive in some ways in respect of what has happened to the children. I rejected that in many respects, but if there is any truth in this description, then he needs to take and exercise parental responsibility.
120. I cannot take matters any further for the moment. I recognise that these children have one parent and one parent only, that B has been a second mother to them and that the children are likely to be very close, but this must all be fathomed out for me by the Guardian by whose advice I am likely to be much guided.