Court Concludes Neo-Nazi Devised Attack on Law Firm

A court has determined that an individual with Nazi sympathies planned a terrorist attack against an immigration law firm, selecting the target after encountering a Daily Mail article. In 2020, Cavan Medlock entered a London solicitors’ office carrying a Nazi flag and a knife, subsequently initiating an assault on personnel. The incident generated significant concern, prompting senior legal professionals to urge Dame Priti Patel, who was then the home secretary, to re-evaluate the terminology she and others employed, asserting that it exacerbated tensions. According to professional leaders, this event has resulted in ongoing apprehension due to extreme right-wing organizations targeting lawyers with abuse and threats. In his police interview, Medlock stated that he had selected the firm and its head of immigration as targets because they had been mentioned in a Daily Mail article published three days prior. The determination made at Kingston Crown Court on Tuesday constituted a factual conclusion by a jury regarding the events, rather than a criminal conviction. A trial of the facts is conducted in uncommon situations where a defendant’s health prevents them from admitting or denying an accusation, yet the legal proceedings must be finalized. An effort to bring Medlock to trial in March was halted following a severe episode of mental ill health. The jury concluded that he had carried out actions amounting to preparation for a terrorist act and making threats to kill when he forcibly entered the offices of the law firm Duncan Lewis. On Thursday, a senior judge is scheduled to determine the most appropriate method for managing Medlock’s detention for public safety, given his mental unfitness for incarceration. The event transpired on September 7, 2020, when Medlock, then aged 27, entered the firm, which houses a specialized immigration law team that manages some of the nation’s most intricate cases. Medlock repeatedly requested to speak with the firm’s head of immigration law; however, after approximately 15 minutes, he produced a six-inch knife and attacked a receptionist. The employee successfully disarmed Medlock, who was eventually overpowered and restrained by other staff members who arrived at the location. Medlock subsequently announced his intention to kill the senior lawyer he had sought and directed racially offensive remarks towards other staff members. Upon one staff member identifying herself as Jewish, Medlock voiced support for Hitler and the Holocaust. Authorities later discovered a Swastika flag in his bag, and his subsequent interview corroborated an ideological motivation consistent with the legal definition of terrorism. At that juncture, Medlock had no diagnosed mental health condition and was deemed fit for questioning by a nurse. During his police interview, he informed detectives of his desire to prevent the firm from assisting immigrants by abducting its immigration chief. He further intended to display the Nazi flag and another flag associated with the United States’ slave-era states in the firm’s window, describing it as a “rallying cry to other nationalists”. “When politics fails and the people have no alternative, I think violence is the only natural progression of that thinking to get change,” he stated to officers, issuing a warning about an ongoing “white genocide.” “Boris Johnson, he’s not going to do anything about mass immigration,” he remarked. “How many times have the Conservatives promised to bring the immigration [level] to 100,000 a year, and failed?” he questioned. Timothy Cray KC, acting as prosecutor, informed Kingston Crown Court: “He was admitting carrying out acts of preparation for terrorism. His brand of terrorism was clear.” “By his own admission, at the time of the attacks, he identified as a Nazi. We say that plan was designed to intimidate a section of the public,” Cray added. “Can you imagine the [media] coverage? A solicitor held hostage, or perhaps worse, and the Nazi flag flying in London,” he further stated. “Perhaps we can console ourselves with the fact that he would not have had many takers,” Cray concluded. Medlock stated: “I first saw his name on [The] Daily Mail, a couple of days ago,” adding, “And then when I Googled his name and I found out he has his office right here… I was like, you know, these people, they can’t just continue to flood Europe with people nobody wants here and get away with it.” Medlock’s phone records verified that he had accessed the article, which mentioned “UK lawyers who coach asylum seekers” to prevent deportation. A spokesperson for the Mail commented: “The Mail gives no support to terrorists, whatever their politics. “The article referenced in this case was a legitimate piece of investigative journalism in the public interest, and the law firm involved was quoted so their view would be represented. “We welcome the fact that the mentally-unwell person who planned this terrorist incident is facing justice.” The court was informed that this article appeared after weeks of briefings from sources within Boris Johnson’s government to certain journalists, alleging that “activist lawyers” were impeding some deportations. The expression was publicly employed a week prior to the attack in a video shared on the Home Office’s Twitter account, now identified as X. Subsequently, the department’s most senior civil servant prohibited its use in government public relations releases. However, Dame Priti Patel, then the home secretary, utilized the phrase in her personal tweet the day before the Mail’s article, though she did not publicly name Duncan Lewis or any other firm. The Bar Council, the professional organization for barristers in England and Wales, denounced the terminology and, at that time, urged her and Boris Johnson to “stop deliberately inflammatory language towards a profession simply doing its job.” Mr. Johnson had previously made distinct remarks disparaging human rights lawyers in his October 2020 party conference speech, but without referencing Duncan Lewis or specific immigration cases. Sam Townend KC, the current president of the council, stated that the organization has consistently cautioned against anti-lawyer rhetoric and expressed hope for a shift in discourse, yet the profession’s anxieties persist at an exceptionally elevated level. Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, remarked: “The attack on Duncan Lewis solicitors was the first example of a worrying new trend.” “This eventually led to threatened attacks on 39 law firms and advice agencies during this summer’s riots,” he continued. “Many lawyers have faced deaths threats and have had to seek police protection. Until recently, this was unheard of in our country,” Atkinson added. “This trend did not emerge from nowhere. It was closely associated with a degraded debate led by senior parliamentarians and sections of the media, largely focused on the immigration and asylum system,” he explained. He concluded: “Words have consequences, particularly when they come from people in positions of seniority and power. They can legitimise hate, encourage division, and have serious repercussions.” Dame Priti Patel was approached for a statement. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC disclaims responsibility for the content of external websites. Information regarding our external linking policy is available.