A court has heard two masked men burnt a pub’s Union Flags while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. Three men are charged with racially aggravated criminal damage and are standing trial at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court.

Zaid Sami, 21, and Nour Sami, 20, both from Feltham, and Omar Sukkar, 21 and from Isleworth, are on trial but deny the charges. The men allegedly tore down flags outside The Fox Pub in Twickenham on October 23, 2023.

Prosecutor Mark Mullins told the court: “This case is about the ripping down and burning of two Union Flags, which the prosecution asserts is an attack on the British people and their way of life and is therefore racially aggravated.

Masked Men ‘Set Fire to Pub’s Union Jacks’ as Court Hears ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘F**k the UK’ Shouted

A criminal trial has heard allegations that masked men tore down and attempted to burn two Union Jack flags outside a pub in Twickenham while shouting political and religious slogans.

Three men are currently on trial at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court over the alleged incident outside The Fox pub on October 23, 2023. Zaid Sami, 21, Nour Sami, 20, both from Feltham, and Omar Sukkar, 21, from Isleworth, are accused of racially aggravated criminal damage. All three deny the charge.

The case has returned to court nearly three years after the alleged incident, with prosecutors presenting evidence from witnesses, CCTV footage and the pub’s landlord.

At the centre of the prosecution case is the claim that the removal and burning of the flags was not simply an act of criminal damage, but was allegedly motivated by hostility towards British people.

What Happened Outside The Fox Pub?

According to the prosecution, the incident happened shortly after 6pm on October 23, 2023.

Prosecutor Mark Mullins told jurors that four young men were involved in removing two Union Flags displayed outside The Fox public house.

The prosecution alleges that two of the defendants physically removed the flags while another defendant was involved in encouraging the others and acting as a lookout.

CCTV footage presented to the court reportedly showed Omar Sukkar climbing onto a noticeboard to reach one of the flags. Zaid Sami is alleged to have removed another.

The prosecution says the activity caused damage to the flagpoles and their fittings before the group moved into a nearby alleyway.

There, the flags were allegedly set alight.

The case therefore involves more than the symbolism of the flags themselves. Prosecutors are attempting to establish that the defendants deliberately damaged property and that the alleged conduct met the legal threshold for racially aggravated criminal damage.

The Alleged Slogans

One of the most prominent elements of the evidence concerns what witnesses say they heard during the incident.

The court heard allegations that members of the group shouted “Allahu Akbar”, as well as “Free Palestine” and “Stop bombing children”, while the flags were being burned. Another witness reportedly heard the phrase “F**k the UK”.

“Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic expression meaning “God is the greatest” and is widely used by Muslims in everyday religious contexts as well as during prayer and other religious situations.

Its presence in the prosecution evidence does not, by itself, establish a terrorist motive or religious motivation for the alleged offence.

The prosecution’s case instead concerns the alleged circumstances in which the words were used and whether the defendants were motivated by hostility towards British people.

That distinction is important because the trial is about specific allegations against three individuals, rather than about Muslims, Palestinians or supporters of Palestinian causes generally.

Landlord Describes the Flags as a Symbol of Britain

Paul Brace, the landlord of The Fox, gave evidence about the importance of the flags to the pub and the surrounding street.

He told the court that two Union Jack flags had been displayed outside the premises and that he regarded them as a source of pride.

Brace described the area as a very British street and said national flags were also displayed around sporting occasions, including rugby and the Six Nations.

He told jurors that the flags helped brighten the street and represented the country and its values.

The landlord said he became aware of the incident after his deputy manager contacted him in what he described as a distressed state.

Brace then followed the group after the flags had allegedly been removed.

He told the court that he saw several figures gathered around the flags and attempting to set them alight.

He described seeing what appeared to be a lighter being passed around as the group struggled to start the fire.

He also told jurors that he could smell burning material and heard people shouting “Allahu Akbar”.

According to the evidence reported from court, Brace decided not to intervene himself and instead contacted emergency services.

The Gaza War Context

The prosecution has also placed the alleged incident within the political atmosphere that existed in October 2023.

The incident took place just over two weeks after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and amid the beginning of the subsequent war in Gaza.

Prosecutor Mark Mullins referred to statements made by then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak shortly before the alleged incident.

Mullins told the court that Sunak had said Israel had a right to defend itself during a speech on October 19 and again addressed the issue in Parliament on October 23.

The prosecution appears to be using that wider political context as part of its explanation of what it says motivated the defendants.

However, the fact that an incident occurred during a period of intense international conflict does not itself establish the motives of any individual defendant.

That is ultimately a matter for the evidence presented during the trial.

Another Witness Describes the Group

The court also heard evidence from Peter Lawlor, who had been drinking outside the nearby Eel Pie public house.

Lawlor reportedly told jurors that he saw four men before the incident.

According to the evidence reported from court, one was wearing what Lawlor described as an Arab-style scarf, while others had their faces covered or were wearing hoods.

He also said one of the men shouted an anti-UK phrase.

Such descriptions form part of the prosecution evidence, but the defendants’ presence, actions and individual roles must still be established to the criminal standard required by the court.

The prosecution alleges that the three defendants acted together.

It claims Nour Sami encouraged the others and acted as a lookout even though he was not seen physically removing a flag.

The defence position is that all three men deny the charge.

Why the Charge Is Racially Aggravated

A central legal issue is why the prosecution has charged the defendants with racially aggravated criminal damage rather than ordinary criminal damage.

Prosecutor Mark Mullins told jurors that the alleged destruction of the flags amounted to an attack on British people and their way of life.

The prosecution alleges that the defendants’ actions demonstrated hostility towards British people because of their racial group.

The court must therefore consider not only what allegedly happened to the flags but also the circumstances and motivation surrounding the alleged offence.

This distinction could become significant during the trial.

The defendants are not being tried for expressing opposition to British foreign policy or for expressing support for Palestinians. Political speech, however controversial, is distinct from criminal damage.

The prosecution must establish the elements of the offence charged against each defendant using the evidence presented in court.

The Fourth Person

Another feature of the prosecution account is the alleged involvement of a fourth man.

The court has heard that four people were seen in the group, but only three defendants are currently on trial.

According to evidence reported from the proceedings, police arrived after the incident and detained three men, while the fourth person escaped.

The prosecution therefore has to establish the individual roles allegedly played by the three defendants who are before the court.

CCTV evidence, witness testimony and the circumstances surrounding the police response are expected to be important in that process.

Why the Case Has Attracted Attention

The case has attracted attention partly because it combines several sensitive issues: national symbols, the Israel-Gaza conflict, religious language, allegations of criminal damage and questions about racial aggravation.

The alleged burning of Union Flags has particular symbolic significance because the Union Jack is a national symbol used across the United Kingdom.

At the same time, the political context surrounding the Israel-Gaza war was exceptionally intense in October 2023, with demonstrations and public debate taking place across Britain.

The trial therefore illustrates how international political conflicts can sometimes become part of disputes and criminal allegations within local communities.

But the court’s task remains narrower: to determine the facts of the particular case and whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the individual defendants.

What Happens Next?

The trial is continuing at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court.

The three defendants — Zaid Sami, Nour Sami and Omar Sukkar — deny the charge of racially aggravated criminal damage.

The evidence described so far comes primarily from the prosecution case and witnesses who have appeared before the court. Allegations made during a criminal trial should not be treated as established facts unless and until they are proved.

The court will have to consider the reliability of witness accounts, CCTV evidence, the alleged conduct of each defendant and the prosecution’s claim concerning motivation.

The case also demonstrates why the wording of reports about ongoing trials matters.

Descriptions such as “burned the flags” can imply guilt when the defendants are still contesting the allegations. In this case, the legally accurate description is that the three men are accused of removing and attempting to burn the flags and are standing trial over the alleged conduct.

For now, the allegations remain allegations.

The eventual verdict will determine whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the three defendants beyond reasonable doubt. Until then, the court proceedings provide an opportunity for both sides to present their evidence concerning what happened outside The Fox pub on that evening in October 2023.