All language subtitles for Special.Ops.To.Catch.a.Criminal.S01E05.1080p.WEB.h264-CODSWALLOP_[English] (SUBRIP)

DIALLING TONE

MALE:Police. What's your emergency?

MALE:Halt! Police officers!

Elite police units, created
to crack the toughest of cases.

My role is investigating
serious and organised crime.

This was out of the ordinary

and this was a high pressure
situation.

Calm yourself down!

Their task?
Tackle the villains...

You're wanted on suspicion
of murder, all right?

..and bring them to justice.

A real "Who did it?"

With unique access to some of
Britain's most talented detectives,

we explore, for the first time,
their investigations...

We've spent years putting together

all of these tiny pieces
of evidence.

..their methods...

The most bizarre investigation
I've been involved in.

..and the evidence

that's put some of the UK's most
dangerous criminals behind bars.

They are clever,
and they're dangerous.

GUNSHOTS

The M62, one of Britain's
busiest motorways.

A 31-tonne truck suddenly
spins out of control.

TYRES SQUEAL

One man is left dead.

Another is mortally injured.

When someone is pronounced dead
at the scene, it's horrible.

You can feel the air change
around you.

You can feel the atmosphere.

Is this simply human error...

The driver's denied that
there's been any faults.

..or does the rot go much deeper?

There was a sense that the driver
was intimidated by the boss.

And how easy will that be to prove?

You've just got to take time

to gather all the evidence
that you need.

In 2022, there were a staggering
333,000 road traffic accidents

across Great Britain.

Every 16 minutes, someone is killed
or seriously injured.

Some RTAs are
heartbreaking accidents,

while others can be the result
of a serious criminal act,

and it's the job of
the road traffic investigators

to dig deep to find the cause
and the culprit.

My name is Ben Pearson,

and I'm a retired West Yorkshire
police officer,

and I spent 19 years
in the Roads Policing Unit.

The worst bit about being
a police officer

is dealing with fatal collisions,
dealing with dead bodies

and having to knock on people's
doors and letting loved ones know

that their family member's
never coming home again.

On April 3rd, 2018, at 9.30am,

police are called to the scene of
a horrific road traffic collision.

A massive 31-tonne heavy goods lorry
transporting a mobile home

has jack-knifed across the M62
central reservation.

When you're attending scenes

of a serious or fatal
road traffic collision,

there's a lot going through
your mind.

Is there anybody injured?

Is the scene safe?

And is the offender still at
the scene, or have they made off?

The crashed vehicle had been at
the start of a 600-mile round trip

from Hull, travelling in convoy
with two other vehicles.

They were only 31 miles
into the journey.

Was this an unavoidable accident
or the result of a criminal act?

It was transporting mobile homes.

It was on an abnormal load escort,

and there was a slow-moving vehicle
in front.

You're driving a big truck
on a road.

It's a dangerous vehicle.

Tragically, the truck hits a car

travelling on the opposite
carriageway.

When officers arrive at the scene,
it's clear from the carnage

one of the two passengers is dead
from the impact.

When someone is pronounced dead
at the scene, it's horrible.

You can feel the air change around
you. You can feel the atmosphere.

Everything just becomes
different and sombre.

Officers discover the fatality is
a 41-year-old married father of two.

We start thinking about the families
that have got to be told

that a loved one's
never coming home.

A 37-year-old male in the passenger
seat is fighting for his life,

having sustained serious injuries.

First responders from
the air ambulance are scrambled

to take him to hospital.

We aim to be at scene
within 20 minutes

of a call coming in anywhere
within Yorkshire.

I'm Stew Ashburner-McManus,

I am a seconded HEMS
aircrew paramedic

and I'm working here at
Yorkshire Air Ambulance.

When we're in the air,
we normally get an update

that will tell us the status
of the patient,

the potential injuries,
any potential hazards on scene.

As the miles-long traffic jam
builds up,

officers at the scene
have the dangerous task

of clearing a section for
the incoming crew.

Our first view of it is normally
as we're coming into land,

and we'll be able to see
the kind of impact.

We can work out the deceleration
forces and the kind of injuries

that we're potentially going to be
dealing with when we arrive.

The hazards normally involve
other vehicles, debris.

Is there oil? Is there fuel?
You know, is there a fire hazard?

The aircraft can create
a lot of downwash

that might damage property.
It can blow people over.

These are all things we've got
to consider on a motorway.

It brings a unique set
of challenges.

With a target time of one hour
from call to arriving at hospital,

the crew hit the ground running.

Going by road from this location,

you're probably looking
45-50 minutes.

Traffic officers now have the
harrowing job of unpicking the scene

to find out what caused
this fatal collision.

It's extremely difficult to protect
a crime scene on a motorway.

You've got cars, trucks.

People get frustrated.
People get angry.

It throws a spanner in the works
in the investigation.

The importance of preserving
the evidence is a real challenge.

You've got to look at a road traffic
collision as a murder scene.

Every single bit of evidence,

tyre marks on the road where
the collision's first taken place,

how the vehicles are situated.

Key witnesses, CCTV
all need to be obtained.

It's clear from the crash site
what has happened,

but now investigators need to
find out how it happened, and why.

You know someone's fatally injured
at the scene.

You know there's devastation
everywhere,

and you know it's not
going to be an easy case.

The badly shaken and injured driver
of the lorry

is questioned at the scene,
where he explains his wheels locked

just before he careered over
the central reservation.

The officers, they'd done all
the various checks on the driver -

driving licence, insurance. They'd
have been breathalysed at the scene,

and then they'd have been arrested
by death by dangerous driving.

The driver is then airlifted
to hospital.

Then the crash site section of
the motorway is closed for 19 hours

as specialist forensic units
take charge and search for evidence.

The forensic work that takes place
is everything from skid tests,

brake tests, all CCTV's recovered,
and all witness statements as well.

So all that needs clearing,
there and then.

It's a long and timely process.

The next day, after being discharged
from hospital,

..the driver is brought in to
the police station for questioning.

But his story seems to have changed.

The driver's denied that there's
been any faults with the brakes,

but he has admitted that the vehicle
has locked up at some point

but doesn't know why.

Suspicious, the motorway officers
start to view hours and hours

of dashcam footage recorded
in the cab...

..and by the driver's colleague
who was travelling behind

in a similar vehicle, transporting
another mobile home.

To get dashcam footage in
an incident like this is invaluable.

It's your eyes and ears
at the scene.

The footage revealed that there's
obviously been a massive problem

with the brakes of
the offending vehicle.

The driver is struggling
to control the vehicle.

He's having several issues of
not being able to brake in time.

And then commenting as well,

saying that there's an issue
with the brakes...

..and then that'll lead straight up
to the collision itself.

TYRES SQUEAL

To see that is damning evidence.

An image speaks a thousand words.

While the driver is
being questioned,

police are in touch with DVSA, the
Driver And Vehicle Standards Agency,

who have taken delivery of
the crashed truck.

They look at it with
a fine tooth comb,

with Collision Investigation Unit,

and find out if there's any faults
on the vehicles,

or is there a reason why
the vehicle's just not stopped?

Commercial haulage vehicles
are subject

to strict operating standards.

If anything goes wrong,
it can be deadly.

Operator's licences are issued
by the Traffic Commissioner,

and they've got to be satisfied
that the haulier

is a fit and proper person
to have an operator's licence

and that they've got
a good maintenance regime.

My name is Ben Southam.

I'm a senior specialist prosecutor

with the Special Crime Division
in the CPS.

I've been in the CPS
for nearly 26 years.

When the case first comes
to the CPS,

it's for what's called
pre-charge advice.

So they're coming to us saying,
"Look, we need to discuss with you

"whether or not we've got
enough evidence or whether we need

"further evidence before we can make
the decision to charge."

The challenge for the CPS
is to establish who's at fault...

..the driver or the haulage boss,

who is responsible
for maintaining the vehicles.

Most of the evidence came
from the dashcam footage

from the two lorries.

The fatal collision happened
just as they were going

over the Ouse Bridge.

He was obviously trying
to slow down,

but his brakes weren't working,

and that then caused the lorry and
the trailer behind it to jack-knife.

TYRES SQUEAL

Early background checks reveal
in 2015,

the boss received a serious warning
when the brakes failed

on one of his vehicles approaching
a roundabout.

It hit a car and caused
serious injury to that driver.

Is this a pattern?
HORN BLASTS

The CPS are keen to impose
a far more serious charge.

When you look at a case like this,

you can't only just look
at the driver,

you've also got to look at
the vehicle,

where the vehicle has come from,
the company itself.

It's not as open and shut
as what people think it is.

You need to start looking close
to home and what the boss is doing.

But looking into the boss
and his business is not simple.

It's very much like a jigsaw puzzle,

putting various pieces
of the evidence together,

and we had to decide ultimately

whether to charge the haulage boss
individually.

The decision was much more difficult
because the evidence

was very different.

12 days after the crash,
the second victim, a 37-year-old man

who's engaged to be married, sadly
dies from a serious head injury.

It is now a double death
by dangerous driving.

They both worked
in the fashion industry

and they were driving
to meet clients.

They were just going about
their normal business.

No-one deserves this to happen
to them.

Humberside Police are investigating
a fatal collision

between a heavy goods vehicle
and a car

containing two men, driving to work.

The CPS had been brought in to work
on the prosecution case.

There is key video evidence
from an accompanying vehicle.

The dashcam footage
from the second lorry

showed how the collision occurred,

but it also showed
a number of other vehicles.

I remember there was a particular
Mini that was trying to get past.

Luckily for the driver of that car,
it accelerated to get past

just seconds before
the collision occurred.

Had it not done that, then that Mini
would've probably been wiped out

as the lorry went through
the central reservation.

TYRES SQUEAL

Determined to see just how
widespread the negligence is,

officers dig deeper and contact
the DVSA,

who have been looking into
the owners of the crashed truck.

The DVSA, they do provide quite
a lot of evidence to the police

around previous occasions
when they'd stopped his vehicles

and found faults, particularly
with things like tyres and brakes.

They issued in the region of 70
prohibitions over a number of years

in relation to his vehicles.

The haulage boss who ran and owned
the company

is red-flagged on the DVSA system.

The focus began to shift away
from the driver to the haulage boss.

It was a little bit like
pulling a piece of string.

As soon as they started digging into
the haulage boss,

they begin to get
a much clearer picture

of the type of person that he was

and the type of business
that he was running.

They then became aware of the fact
that the boss had been disqualified

having an operator's licence
by the Traffic Commissioner.

That then put him centre-stage
of the investigation.

So although the driver
had responsibility on the day,

it was the way in which the boss
ran his company

that was the key point
that we were trying to prove.

Officers start the challenging task
of trying to dig up evidence

of the haulage boss's
systemic negligence,

proving that he was
the one responsible

for the horrendous fatal crash.

The haulage boss,

he had an insurance policy
for drivers over 25,

but, in fact, a lot of his drivers
were under 25.

The driver in this case was 22,

and of course, the reason
for that is the insurance policy

will be considerably cheaper,

but also, he employed
younger drivers

who he could boss and bully,
effectively.

And if ever they stood up to him,

he just threatened them
with the sack.

It turns out that the 39-year-old
haulage boss from Hull

also has previous convictions
for making false tachograph records

to conceal driver-hour
infringements.

In order to convict the boss,

the CPS collate intel and evidence

to unravel how
his haulage business runs.

We needed to get the evidence of
the way that he ran his operation.

So that included the fact

that he wasn't getting vehicles
repaired properly.

He was looking to cut corners,
save costs wherever he could do.

We were trying to get evidence

to demonstrate that everything
that happened within his business

happened with his knowledge
and consent.

It's clear his focus is on profit,

regardless of rules to keep us safe
on the roads.

The haulage boss
had been disqualified

by the Traffic Commissioner
previously

from having an operator's licence,

so he was using something
called ghosting.

The haulage boss were a bit
of a shady character

cos he'd opened a ghost company up
under another name.

He'd go to other businesses
that had an operating certificate

and be saying, "Please put my trucks
on your certificate."

He was effectively using
other companies as a front

for his own company.

He also set up a company
in his mother's name,

purported to employ the drivers
as a driver agency,

when, in fact, that was just
a complete sham.

The reality was that the drivers
were working for him,

being paid by him and doing work
for his company.

He knew what he were doing. He were
doing things very illegally.

It's more difficult to build
a successful case against the boss,

but without it,
will there be justice?

I decided to charge the haulage boss
with gross negligence manslaughter.

Which is very rare.

19 years in roads policing,

I've never heard of someone
being prosecuted for such a crime.

And there were some other offences

of aiding and abetting,
causing death whilst uninsured.

The evidence demonstrates
that he was responsible

for all the key decisions
about how the company was run.

We felt that he was the person
that was responsible and culpable.

The manslaughter charge
is because of serious concerns

around the haulage boss's
disregard for health and safety.

It was profit over safety.

That was the key issue,
that wherever he could cut corners,

he did, and it was all about
making money for him.

The team hunt for as much evidence
as possible

of the boss systematically ignoring
health and safety.

The dashcam showed both lorries
stopped at a truck stop...

..and you could hear them talking
about what they described

as a "Friday defect."

And what that meant to them
was that there was a known fault

with the vehicle, but faults
weren't repaired until Friday

or the weekend, so that the haulage
boss could keep his wagons

on the road, earning money
during the week.

It was a very key piece of evidence,

because it demonstrated the haulage
boss's attitude to road safety

and prioritised making money
over the safety of the public.

Forensic examination of the truck

reveals the problem with the brakes
would have cost a mere £200 to fix.

The Collision Investigation Unit and
the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency

actually found that it was just
a rubber washer that had perished,

so when they put the brakes on,
it were a four-to-six-second delay

before the trailer unit
started braking.

And then when he took his foot
off the brakes,

it were four to six seconds
before the tractor unit

had had its brakes either applied
or not applied.

So then, as they're going over the
Ouse bridge, he put the brakes on.

So the brakes on the lorry worked,

but the brakes on
the trailer didn't,

and that's what caused
the jack-knife.

TYRES SQUEAL

£200 could have saved
two people's lives.

It's a simple fix, and
it could have been done easily.

By October 2020, two years on,
the court is open to hear pleas.

So, the driver pled guilty

to two counts of death
by dangerous driving,

and the haulage company boss
pleaded guilty

to a health and safety offence,
but not guilty to everything else.

So he went to trial,
but he didn't give evidence.

Sometimes you've just got
to stand up

and take ownership
of what you've done.

And him not doing that shows
no respect for the people

that have been fatally injured
or their families.

During the boss's trial,
in June 2021,

his defence relies heavily
on blaming others -

primarily his junior employee,
the driver.

There was a sense that both
the driver and the other employees

were intimidated by the boss.

The evidence painted
a very clear picture

of the type of business that he ran.

Basically, you did as you were told,
or you got out.

The boss of the haulage company
made every excuse under the sun.

So, it was the driver's fault,
or it was the other operators,

that in fact it was their vehicles,
not his own vehicles.

The lorry that was involved
in the collision

was using an operator's licence
for another company.

He tried to say that it was in fact
that company that was running

that lorry, when in fact
the evidence clearly showed

it was fulfilling an order for his
company, using one of his drivers.

So it was very clear that in fact,
it was his lorry doing his work.

And we know that he'd been running
his business this way for years.

So, as the judge described, this was
an accident waiting to happen.

I think it's frankly amazing
that nobody else was killed

in this collision.

June 25th.

The haulage boss is found guilty

of the unprecedented
and most serious of charges.

The driver is sentenced
to nine years,

reduced to six on a guilty plea,

and is disqualified from driving
for five years after his release.

The jury convicted the haulage boss
of gross negligence manslaughter

and aiding and abetting,
causing death whilst uninsured.

He sentenced the haulage boss
to 15 years' imprisonment,

which is one of
the longest sentences

that we're aware of for a workplace
manslaughter prosecution.

I think that's a fantastic result

for all our officers' hard work
and dedication.

What cases like this demonstrate

is how complex
these investigations are,

that it's very much like
putting together a jigsaw,

and therefore you've just got
to take time to gather

all the evidence that you need.

The severity of the sentence

reflects how the blatant,
systematic failures

of the haulage boss led to two
innocent men losing their lives.

The judge appeared to have a very
clear view of the haulage boss,

and certainly when he was sentencing
him, he used phrases like

"lawless operation" and described
the haulage boss as being greedy.

The judge made a really good comment
at the end of this case,

saying that although
cuts were made in the business,

they weren't made for reasons
such as,

"I needed to feed my family"
or "I needed to make ends meet."

He did it just for greed.

So people like this
need to be behind bars.

I think the haulage boss is still
in denial about what happened.

He has unsuccessfully tried
to appeal his conviction

and he still blames everybody else
but himself.

Coming up, after receiving reports

of the online radicalisation
of a teenager,

counter-terrorism policing
battle to stop

a deadly Islamist-inspired
killing spree.

Alone in a dark bedroom in Essex,

a teenage boy is slowly becoming
self-radicalised.

This case was unusual.

It's very strange for us
to find somebody that young,

and somebody who has converted
to Islam

and mainly done it themselves,
online.

Could his online obsession
turn into a rampage of terror

on the streets of London?

The subject had changed
his WhatsApp profile to a term

that said "Kill non-Muslims."

But with no laws broken,
the pressure is on

for counter-terrorism police
to apprehend a teenager

determined to wreak terror
in the name of Allah.

He was clearly ascribing
to a radical form of Islam

and was determined to be
an Islamist terrorist.

Over the past year,

terror arrests have risen
by nearly 50% in the UK...

..helped by a massive escalation
in teenagers being held

for plotting extremist attacks.

The threat changed
very significantly

into low-sophistication
terrorist attacks

committed by an individual,
usually self-initiated.

22nd of May, 2017.

British citizen Salman Abedi
carried out

one of the UK's most deadly
extremist attacks

by detonating a home-made bomb
in the Manchester Arena,

resulting in 23 deaths.

Since 2017,
counter-terrorism policing

has helped stop 39 serious
terror plots in the UK...

..and when they identify
a new threat, they have to act fast.

SIREN WAILS

Cases can come to our attention
in a number of ways.

Often, that can be a report
from a member of the public

who thinks that they've seen
something concerning.

April 2022 -

a number of mosques
from East London and Essex

call the anti-terrorist hotline,

reporting a white teenager
who's interested in violent jihad.

I'm Philip Mills. I'm a detective
superintendent for SO15,

which is London's counter-terrorism
policing unit,

and I'm responsible for
leading investigations.

So the initial reports were
primarily just concerned about

some of the comments that he'd been
making, and his behaviours,

which they thought were
supporting of acts of terror

and supporting of potentially
wanting to be a jihadi.

They wanted to make it clear to him
that that wasn't their beliefs

and something they wanted
to tolerate in their mosques.

In the certainty that the UK
faces future deadly attacks,

counter-terrorism officers take
reports like this very seriously.

So, the anti-terrorist hotline
is a dedicated line

which is staffed 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year.

My name is Dominic Murphy.

I am the commander of SO15,

the counter-terrorism command
here at the Metropolitan Police.

I'm responsible for managing nearly
2,000 officers and staff

who are involved in specialist
and generalist

counter-terrorism response
that is fit

for the future threats we face here
in the UK.

But protecting the public
from a potential mastermind

behind a deadly terror attack,
before it's happened,

is challenging work for
the counter-terrorism officers.

We would do our own research to
understand who that individual was,

whether it was somebody
that was already known to us.

We were trying to understand as much
about them as possible.

The subject was 18 years old
at the time.

He had been out of mainstream
education since year eight.

He'd been involved in some violent
episodes previously at school.

After being expelled,
his behaviour deteriorated.

He would get stoned and argue
with his mother.

He then attended an educational unit
in Basildon until he was 16.

He is somebody who had been working
part-time but during the pandemic

had converted from Christianity
to Islam.

The subject's mother
had become concerned

about some of his comments,
some of his behaviour,

also what he was doing
when he was out of the house,

the things he was looking at online.

They discover that the teenager's
name has been flagged up

as a potential victim
of radicalisation previously.

He'd been recommended
an intervention programme.

Prevent is something that we use
in the UK whereby if we think

somebody is at risk
of radicalisation,

we can refer them
to support services

to help them not become radicalised.

It's important to remember
that Prevent is voluntary.

So whilst we can refer people
to Prevent,

they do not need to stay there.

Worryingly, the teenager refuses
to engage with Prevent.

So, at that point, that helps us
make a decision

in relation to what our next actions
are going to be.

The counter-terrorism team
need to act with speed and caution.

Once a suspect knows that
they're on to them,

they may accelerate their plans
to commit a terror attack.

Operation Checkroom is launched.

The counter-terrorism team
needs to ascertain the risks

the teenager presents to the public.

So one of the things the subject's
mother was concerned about

was some of the media that
he'd been watching online.

In 2020, lockdown meant that
life online became the norm.

Everybody was quite isolated
and indoors a lot,

and there were some concerns around
some of the videos

that he had been watching
and how those had changed

his opinions and his beliefs.

Despite living at home, the teenager
becomes detached from the family.

He purchases a prayer mat, Islamist
books, starts to learn Arabic

and will only eat halal food.

He was clearly following
a radical form of Islam,

but some of our younger subjects

don't necessarily assign one
ideology to their radical thoughts.

They will consume vast amounts
of extreme media online,

mostly really violent media
that can be of any sort.

It doesn't necessarily
need to be related to Islam

or terrorism in any way.

It can be violent school shootings
from America

or lots of other material.

His online radical views start
to spill over into the real world.

His dress had changed.

He started wearing more formal
Islamic clothing.

He had started criticising
his sisters

in relation to their behaviours
and had started saying some comments

which they thought were supportive
of terrorism.

DSU Philip Mills needs to gather
enough evidence

in order to make the decision to use
the arrest under the Terrorism Act,

so they can get the teenager
off the streets

in case he's planning
an imminent attack.

We have a very difficult balance
to take between the threat they pose

and allowing them to be out
in the public

and securing as much evidence
as possible to ensure that

when we arrest them, we're
disrupting them in the longer term.

But getting the timing wrong
could have disastrous consequences.

The teenager has broken no laws,
but his extremist sympathies

are becoming more apparent.

He had changed his status profile

to a picture of a terrorist
called Mohammed Emwazi,

who had murdered and beheaded
some British and US nationals

in Syria many years ago.

More commonly known as Jihadi John,
this Islamic State militant

had grown up - and been
radicalised - in London.

The subject had changed his profile
to a term that said,

"Kill non-Muslims
wherever you find them,"

and clearly that's a very strong
indication of how radical

and potentially violent
this individual was.

It's always difficult to quantify
how extreme someone's beliefs are,

until you can start to speak to them

and get a bit of a better
understanding of them,

but certainly his behaviour...

To hear from both his mother
and from people

that are interacting with him
in the mosque,

certainly really concerning for us,

which is what led us to think that
we wanted to try and arrest him

and commence a full investigation
as soon as possible.

DSU Mills needs to proceed
with extreme caution.

Clearly, we have to do an awful lot
of research on the house.

The last thing we want to do is put
anyone else in the house at risk,

including any younger children

or anyone who's not involved
in the plot.

18th of May 2022.

Counter-terrorism officers arrest
a teenager under the Police
And Criminal Evidence Act...

..but the pressure is on.

They can only hold him for 24 hours,
so they need to act fast.

The subject initially gave
a prepared statement

about his religious beliefs,
stating that he wasn't a terrorist,

that he had Islamic views,
but that he believed

that they were acceptable views.

After that, he answered "No comment"
to all the questions

that my investigators asked him.

So, very few terrorists
talk to us in interview.

They may have really strong reasons

why they were doing a certain type
of activity, or something online.

We need to give them a chance
to explain.

We moved from thinking,

"Is this someone who has
downloaded some terrorist material

"because they have terrorist views
or sent it on to others?",

when we realised that,
actually, we firmly believed

that he was planning
a real-world attack.

The teenager's behaviour during
interviews fuels the officers' fears

that he could be a danger
to the public.

So, within 24 hours,
it was clear to us

that there was potential
terrorist offences

that we would need more time
to investigate.

So we arrested him under
the Terrorism Act,

which enables us to hold
somebody for up to 48 hours

before we have to apply for
a warrant to keep them for longer.

He told my officers that
he didn't believe in the UK law.

The only law that he believed in
was the law of Allah.

They now have 48 hours to gather
enough evidence

of the extremist attacks
he's planning,

or they will be forced to release
a potential terrorist

onto the streets.

The subject's mother was a witness
in this case.

Of course, she was really supportive
and she wanted to make sure

that we understood what happened,

but she also has the best interest
of the subject at heart.

So whilst she was a witness,

my team also tried to support her
through this,

which was very difficult
circumstances for her,

because I don't think she had
any idea what he was planning

or what he could have done.

On the 25th of May,
officers return to his house

and conduct a search.

So, a couple of things
that were found during the search

of the subject's house
that were really important to us,

a pair of tactical gloves -

so, gloves that you might, for
example, see on a firearms officer -

and the same for a pair of
tactical goggles.

We also then found images
that he'd taken of himself

with his hood up and
wearing face coverings

that led us to believe that
he purchased those items for him

to use in some form of
terror attack.

Officers find a camouflage jacket,
a baseball cap and training shoes,

along with a notebook
with notes in Arabic

on how to gain more
Twitter followers.

The individual had a backpack,
and in it was a Shahada flag,

so a flag largely associated
with ISIS,

and, of course, a balaclava
was in there as well.

So there was a certain amount
of information

which supported our hypothesis

that this was an individual
likely to launch a terrorist attack

and was preparing to do so.

Concerned he could be planning
an act of terrorism,

DSU Philip Mills calls in
the Digital Exploitation Team

to find supportive evidence quickly

by delving deeper into
his digital footprint.

We could see that he had been
posting some messages

about being a supporter
of terrorism,

talking about terrorist acts,

talking about planning
terror attacks.

We found lots of material
that suggested

he'd been conducting
reconnaissance videos.

He had filmed
outside Stratford Court,

Stratford police station,

Stratford train station.

And he produced videos where
he had attempted to zoom in

or look at police officers
in certain locations in that area,

which caused us some concern
about what he was planning to do.

So, in order to understand

how someone goes from
talking about doing something

to actually taking active steps
is a very, very difficult balance.

Now, sometimes we have
a lot of people

that say a lot of things online
they don't mean.

We're all familiar with that
in today's social media environment.

But in this case, in addition
to his statements made online

and the things he was talking about,

he was also undertaking
some activities.

The officers discover a disturbing
video made on the 17th of May, 2022,

at the Seventh Rifles Regiment
army barracks.

They believe he was planning
an Islamist attack.

He was seen standing outside
the front door

of the Seventh Rifles's barracks,

and he appeared to be videoing
and saying some things

into his phone at the time that
he was observing the front gates

and the security
of that establishment.

We identified three or four examples
where he had conducted

what we would term hostile
reconnaissance of potential targets

for a terrorist attack.

He had attempted to covertly film
a police officer,

and in that video,
he has zoomed in on them.

He's then done something whereby
he's produced a little clip himself.

He's put some writing on the video,
which says "Target acquired."

Counter-terrorism police
have arrested a teenager from Essex

for planning an Islamist-inspired
terror attack in London.

His mobile phone has revealed
worrying videos of him conducting

reconnaissance of military
and police targets.

Certainly, as
the investigation progressed

and we saw some of the videos
that he has produced,

our perception was that he was
on the verge of planning something,

some kind of attack, on UK soil.

But the officers need to
find definitive evidence

of a planned attack
to bring a charge against him.

They continue to track the trail
of data he's left behind online.

Many of his searches are
of grave concern.

The pressure is on.

The 48-hours interview deadline
is fast approaching.

The Digital Exploitation Team
make a breakthrough.

We were able to identify

that he had registered at the Knife
Warehouse the December before,

and we were also able to establish

that he'd been googling
"ISIS knife attack,"

which gave us some real concerns
around what his motivation

for registering with
the Knife Warehouse was,

and what his intentions were going
to be, were he able to buy a knife.

Armed with the supportive evidence

that the teenager is actively
preparing a deadly terror attack...

..DSU Philip Mills needs to act fast
to keep the teenager in custody.

So, one of the things
we will do immediately

is commence a process called
a warrant of further detention.

And that's where we go
in front of a judge

and ask to detain this individual
for a longer period of time.

Terrorism Act essentially lets us
keep someone

for a maximum of 14 days.

That is extremely serious,

to detain someone, without charging
them, for that period of time.

Despite extending
the custody period,

there is still a possible risk
to the public.

DSU Mills can't rule out
that the teenager might be working

within a terrorist cell.

So the Digital Exploitation Team

focus on encrypted messaging
services on the teenager's phone,

trying to identify possible
co-conspirators.

We were able to identify
that he'd been in contact

with a female that
we're referring to as Ms A.

It certainly looked as if they were,
at least, friends

or involved in some kind
of relationship.

We saw some of those messages,
and certainly they were alarming,

with some of the things
that he had been saying

about what he would like to do,
in terms of committing a terror act.

The pair shared graphic plans
on how he would torture,

mutilate and behead Marines.

We know he'd been performing what we
would describe as reconnaissance

outside a military barracks,
and then to find messages

that he'd sent to somebody else
talking about wanting to kidnap

and commit acts of torture,

you realise quite how dangerous
an individual that he was.

There were a number of other
relatively extreme conversations

that talked about his intent and
the things that were in his mind.

DSU Mills now needs to find
supportive evidence

to link these messages
with a specific plot.

They discover encrypted
group chats on Telegram.

One was named Group Studies.

He was seeking to join some groups

where he could ask questions
about launching terrorist attacks,

where he could watch extreme ISIS
videos or videos of beheadings -

all material that was adding to
this large amount of evidence

which suggested that this subject
was indeed a committed terrorist.

When we found those messages, things
really start to click in place.

They went into a great degree
of graphic detail

about what he wanted to do,

were he able to capture a police
officer or a military officer

and then seek to commit acts
of torture on them,

and ultimately he expressed
a desire to kill them.

And clearly, when you add that
with the videos taken

at the barracks, that's a deeply
concerning picture for me.

Officers begin gathering CCTV
to cross-reference

with the reconnaissance videos

to prove the videos were made
by the teenager.

As you can imagine, recovering
all that CCTV is really complex.

So once we know the subject's
movements, we're able to go

and recover CCTV from across London
and the Home Counties.

It was really valuable for us
to be able to cross-reference that

and show that on the date and time
that he'd made the video,

that we could also put him
in the area from the CCTV

because it acts as corroboration, in
terms of any defence he might have.

It's really valuable evidence
for us.

And what we can see
is that this subject

was conducting reconnaissance.

Officers desperately analyse hours
of videos and CCTV footage

to give the CPS enough evidence
to approve charging the teenager.

In this case, the CPS worked very
closely with us every single day,

and so every single new piece
of evidence is considered

by our investigation team,
our senior investigating officer

and, of course, the Crown
Prosecution Service.

Right up to the wire, after 14 days,

they finally feel they have enough
substantial evidence

to prove the teenager was plotting
an horrific Islamist terror attack.

At that point, it was clear
that we could identify his ideology

and his belief system.

The Crown Prosecution Service,
they ultimately agreed with us,

that we thought
there was enough evidence.

The subject was charged with
Section 5 of the Terrorism Act.

That's an offence that relates

to someone preparing to conduct
a terrorist attack

and is one of the most serious
offences in the Terrorism Act.

He didn't have any response
to being charged.

The teenager remains in custody
for a year,

deemed too dangerous
to be released on bail.

It's noted that he seems to maintain
his strong Islamist sympathies.

The defendant had been making
some comments

and seeking to radicalise others
within the prison system.

And of course, that's really
concerning to us because it suggests

that all our views about the risk
that he presents were correct,

that he's actually seeking to try
and radicalise others

who may get out of prison
before he does,

to try and commit a terror attack.

Following the charge
and before going to trial,

the teenager decides to
plead guilty.

I like to think the reason
he pleaded guilty

was because we were able to put
such a strong case into court.

The evidence against him
was overwhelming.

20th of January 2023,

the teenager appears
at the Old Bailey,

accused of preparing terror acts
between December 2021 and May 2022.

At that point, he introduced
a basis of what his plea was.

He suggested that he initially
wanted to go to Syria,

and would only commit an attack
in the UK

if he wasn't able to get there.

That wasn't accepted by the Crown.

There was nothing to suggest that
he'd been trying to go to Syria,

and all the evidence that
we had established at that point

was indicating that his plan
was to commit an attack on UK soil.

The teenager is sentenced to
life imprisonment

and given a minimum six-year tariff.

I think a life sentence
for a Section 5 is quite common.

That's based on
the judge's assessment

that he is a dangerous individual
and that he poses a significant risk

to the public
and to national security.

This is a case that shows
the absolute value that we place

in contact with the public.

We only really disrupted
this imminent terrorist attack

as a result of the public
calling us.

This was a really thorough and
meticulous investigation by my team,

to be able to establish what
he'd done and how dangerous he was,

and ultimately the investigation
was such that he pled guilty.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media