Bill Emlyn Jones told jurors at Woolwich Crown Court that the defendants had visited addresses, taken photographs and recorded videos as requested by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Their actions assisted the group even though no attack followed, he argued.
Mostafa Sepahvand, 41, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 46, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 57, deny charges under Britain’s National Security Act. The alleged targets included Iran International journalists Kambiz Hosseini and Mojtaba Pourmohsen, as well as barrister Jonathan Turner.
Prosecutors say Sepahvand was expected to carry out an attack and recruited Javadi Manesh and Noori to help locate and monitor targets.
Sepahvand says he acted under threats against himself and his family while deliberately frustrating the operation. Javadi Manesh and Noori deny knowing that their activities were assisting Iranian intelligence.
Demands for better information
Jones challenged Sepahvand’s account by pointing to his repeated demands for more accurate information about the targets.
The IRGC had supplied overhead photographs and a description of a car without its registration number, the prosecutor said. Javadi Manesh consequently went to the correct street but filmed the wrong people.
Jones argued that Sepahvand’s frustration with incomplete or inaccurate information showed that he was genuinely trying to locate the targets. He asked why Sepahvand had worked so hard to obtain better information if, as he claimed, he had no intention of completing the task.
The prosecutor also challenged Sepahvand’s defense that threats had compelled him to cooperate.
Jones acknowledged Sepahvand’s repeated accounts of family members suffering at the hands of Iranian authorities. But he argued that the issue was whether the IRGC had placed Sepahvand under duress in this case, rather than whether it was capable of doing so.
He said there was no evidence supporting Sepahvand’s account of acting under such pressure.
A deal to return to Iran
Jones argued that Sepahvand wanted his Iranian criminal case, involving 32 burglary offenses, resolved so he could return to Iran.
The messages showed bargaining over which side would act first, he said: Sepahvand wanted the case fixed before carrying out the task, while the IRGC wanted him to complete the work before resolving it.
Jones cited messages from Vahid Malmir expressing hope that the case could be resolved and Sepahvand could return to Iran, followed by Sepahvand’s affirmative response.
He also referred to messages from Mostafa Ghorbani relaying assurances that Sepahvand’s case was settled, that he would be provided with a house and that people would meet him at the airport.
In another exchange cited by Jones, Sepahvand indicated that even if he got into trouble in Britain, he would be free in Iran.
The prosecutor argued that Sepahvand’s desire to return contradicted his account of being terrified of the Iranian authorities. That wish explained why the criminal case mattered so much to him and why the IRGC could use it as a “bargaining chip,” Jones said.
Co-defendants’ explanations challenged
Jones said the prosecution had to establish that the defendants’ conduct materially assisted the IRGC. He argued that they had done precisely what the group wanted in Britain: visiting supplied addresses, locating targets and conducting surveillance.
Javadi Manesh and Noori accepted visiting locations and taking photographs and videos, Jones said. The disputed issue was whether they knew why they were doing so.
He questioned whether they could spend hours with Sepahvand, repeatedly visit locations and photograph buildings and vehicles without asking about the purpose.
The suggestion that they simply followed his instructions without asking why “defies common sense,” Jones argued.
He challenged Javadi Manesh’s explanations in police interviews, including his account that Sepahvand was helping him find somewhere to live when they visited Malthouse Court.
The prosecutor said Sepahvand went there because the IRGC had supplied it as a possible address for Pourmohsen.
Jones also cited Javadi Manesh’s explanation that he photographed Iran International’s building because it was “pretty,” and that he had been nearby to obtain painkillers.
He rejected Javadi Manesh’s account that a visit to St Dunstan’s Avenue concerned selling car insurance, pointing to messages from Sepahvand about the street, a blue car and Hosseini’s dog, Niko.
Jones also questioned Javadi Manesh’s explanation for receiving and forwarding information about Turner, including his office locations. Javadi Manesh had told police that a relative of his partner needed a solicitor.
Javadi Manesh did not give evidence during the trial. Jones argued that he had avoided cross-examination because he could not defend the explanations he had given police.
Turning to Noori, the prosecutor accused him of concealing the nature of his relationship with Sepahvand despite accompanying him on repeated surveillance trips, including one shortly before midnight.
Jones pointed to calls Sepahvand made to Amin and Ghorbani in Iran while Noori was in the car. The conversations concerned what they could see at a location and complaints about missing information, he said.
Noori, who speaks Persian and Lori, would have heard enough to understand what was happening, Jones argued. He also suggested that the calls could be heard through the car’s speakers.
The defense’s closing arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday with Tyrone Smith speaking for Sepahvand.
