Man Who “Made Pact With The Devil” Sentenced Over Possession… of “Extreme Material”
Concerns Flagged with Counter Terrorism Police Over “Lone Wolf” Sees Man Sentenced.
The recent sentencing of 26-year-old Declan George-Candiani, who told police he had “made a pact with the devil” and developed an “unhealthy obsession” with extremist ideology, is another stark reminder of how tightly UK terrorism laws regulate online material – and how quickly a person’s private downloads can lead to a criminal investigation or prison sentence.
While the facts of this case are unusual, the legal issues at its core are increasingly common: the possession of documents deemed “likely to be useful to a terrorist”, the broad reach of Schedule 7 powers and the challenge of distinguishing genuine ideological intent from mental health struggles or fascination with disturbing content.
What Happened in the Case?
George-Candiani was stopped under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at Stansted Airport in August 2024 – a power which allows officers to detain and question individuals at ports and airports without suspicion.
His electronic devices were seized and examined, revealing guides on how to carry out “lone-wolf attacks” and documents containing instructions for “extreme violence”.
At interview, he claimed he had become obsessed with a fringe extremist group promoting “traditional Satanism”, saying he believed he had made a “pact with the devil” and describing a “possessed mindset”.
He insisted he had never intended to harm anyone.
A jury at the Old Bailey convicted him of two counts of possessing material likely to be useful to a terrorist, contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
He received a custodial sentence of 23 months.
The Wider Legal Implications
1. Schedule 7: Extraordinary Powers With Serious Consequences
As this case demonstrates, Schedule 7 allows Police or Counter Terrorism officers to stop, search, question and download a traveller’s digital devices with no requirement for suspicion.
While designed to identify terrorism risks, these examinations increasingly lead to prosecutions for possession-based offences – even where no plan to commit violence is found.
For many individuals, the first moment they discover they are under scrutiny is when officers seize their phone or laptop at an airport.
From a defence perspective, this raises important issues around:
- the proportionality of such stops
- whether questioning strayed into unlawful interrogation
- the handling and interpretation of digital material
- the risk of “context-collapse”, where eclectic or obsessive internet use is mistaken for dangerous intent
2. The Broad Scope of Section 58 Terrorism Act Offences
The offence for which George-Candiani was convicted does not require proof of extremist intent or a plan to carry out an attack.
Simply possessing material deemed “likely to be useful to a terrorist” – even if accessed out of curiosity, mental health difficulties, or ideological confusion – can be enough to secure a conviction.
This presents significant challenges for defendants, particularly young people or vulnerable adults who may explore disturbing online content without understanding the legal risks.
Courts must examine intent and context carefully to ensure that inquisitiveness or troubled thinking is not automatically equated with terrorism.
3. Mental Health and Extremist Ideology
George-Candiani told officers he felt “overpowered” by the ideology and had developed an obsession he could not control – raising questions about the role of mental health in extremist-related offences.
In cases involving obsessive research, fantasy material or delusional thinking, psychiatric assessment can be essential. A defence team must ensure that:
- mental health conditions are fully explored
- any vulnerability is taken into account
- the court properly distinguishes belief from illness, and fantasy from intent
4. Growing Focus on Non-Islamist Extremism
The case also highlights the increasing focus by Counter Terrorism Policing on extreme-right-wing and occult-based extremist subcultures.
The legal threshold remains the same regardless of ideology, but defendants involved in fringe or online groups may be unaware that certain material is prohibited or considered inherently dangerous.
Why Early Legal Advice is Critical
Being stopped at a port under Schedule 7 or finding yourself accused of possessing extremist material is frightening and potentially life-altering.
Even where an individual has no intention to commit violence, the law is complex and the consequences can be severe.
At Mortons Solicitors, we regularly advise clients who have been stopped under Schedule 7, interviewed under caution, or charged with offences relating to extremist literature, digital material or alleged online behaviour.
We can assist with:
- challenging the basis and scope of Schedule 7 examinations
- ensuring digital material is interpreted properly and fairly
- exploring mental health considerations and obtaining expert assessments
- defending section 58 and related Terrorism Act offences
How We Can Help
If any questions or concerns about what sort of materials could land you in trouble – or any questions about legal representation for terrorism-related offences, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Call us now on 0161 477 1121 or email us.
