At Woolwich Crown Court on Monday, prosecutor Bill Emlyn Jones challenged contradictions between Mostafa Sepahvand’s testimony and his messages to a contact in Iran, accusing him of being a “skilled liar.”
Sepahvand later acknowledged that a proposed £150,000 payment was conditional on harming a journalist, but maintained that he had demanded the sum to deter the IRGC and never intended to carry out an attack.
Sepahvand, 41, is on trial alongside Farhad Javadi Manesh, 46, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 57. All three deny charges under Britain’s National Security Act.
Prosecutors allege they gathered information for Iranian intelligence to prepare for serious violence against at least one target, with Sepahvand expected to carry out an attack. The alleged targets included Iran International journalists Mojtaba Pourmohsen and Kambiz Hosseini.
Jones put it to Sepahvand that either his messages to Mostafa Ghorbani or his account to the jury was untrue. Following the prosecutor’s accusation that he was a skilled liar, Sepahvand shouted in English: “I never did this.” The court then took a break.
When the hearing resumed, his defense barrister, Tyrone Smith, asked him to confirm that the £150,000 discussed in his messages related to causing harm to a journalist. Sepahvand answered yes.
Smith revisited a March 20, 2025, voice message in which Sepahvand discussed the payment, locating a target and carrying out the task when the money was ready.
Asked whether he believed the money would ever be paid, Sepahvand said no. He maintained that his demands were intended to scare off the IRGC.
“I never wanted to harm anyone,” he told the court, saying he had been deceiving the group throughout because he hated it. Asked whether he had ever seen or harmed any of the journalists, he answered no.
Earlier questioning examined Sepahvand’s repeated attempts to reach Ghorbani in late December 2024 and January 2025.
Sepahvand said he was anxious about his criminal case in Iran and wanted Ghorbani and another contact, Amin, to enlist the help of a man referred to as “Haji.”
He said Amin had told him the case had been stopped or canceled, but that this was a lie.
A translated Iranian judicial document examined in court indicated that Sepahvand’s sister appeared on his behalf on January 7, 2025, to appeal convictions dating from 2014 for 32 burglary offenses. The appeal was unsuccessful, although the judge altered the sentence.
Sepahvand said his sister appealed again and that he also pleaded guilty. He maintained that repeated calls to Ghorbani concerned efforts to resolve the case.
He attributed other exchanges about money to car trading, a bodywork workshop and loans that had to be repaid with interest.
During the defense questioning, Sepahvand reaffirmed that threats against his family had prompted his actions. Smith referred to his account that he had sought to appear cooperative without actually assisting a foreign intelligence service or intending to harm anyone.
Smith also asked whether Sepahvand’s solicitor had contacted counterterrorism police several times between July and December 2025 to say he had information to provide, and whether police had declined to speak to him until he pleaded guilty. Sepahvand answered yes.
He confirmed that he had asked his solicitor to pass on the name of Navid, a contact previously discussed during the trial.
Prosecutors reject Sepahvand’s claim that he acted under duress and deliberately performed the surveillance poorly.
According to the prosecution’s account of their defenses, Javadi Manesh and Noori accept visiting locations and taking photographs and videos but say they did not know they were assisting Iranian intelligence.