Two Romanian nationals have been sentenced to significant prison terms for their roles in a stabbing attack on a London-based journalist, Pouria Zeraati. The court determined the assault was carried out on behalf of the Iranian state, targeting Mr. Zeraati due to his critical reporting of the regime.

George Stana, 25, received a 12-year sentence, with the judge stating he “ought to have known” the attack was orchestrated for Iran. Nandito Badea, 21, who was involved for a shorter period, was sentenced to eight years. Both men had pleaded not guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Judge Cheema-Grubb presided over the case, concluding that the attack was “carried out for and for the benefit of a foreign power.” She highlighted that Mr. Zeraati was a prominent critic of the Iranian government and had previously faced threats, as had members of his family.

Prosecutors detailed the incident as a “planned attack preceded by reconnaissance, and which was ordered by a third party acting on behalf of the Iranian state.” The court heard that Mr. Zeraati was stabbed multiple times in the thigh. Badea and another individual, David Andrei, who remains in Romania and was not on trial, reportedly surrounded the victim, with one of them carrying out the stabbing.

Stana was observed waiting in a blue Mazda 3, identified on CCTV footage from prior “hostile reconnaissance” missions. This surveillance activity, involving Badea and Andrei visiting the victim’s property on eight occasions across five dates, was presented as evidence of a premeditated plan. The prosecution asserted that Badea and Andrei had flown into the country “expressly” for the attack.

Rupert Kent, representing the prosecution, argued that the defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that the attack was instigated by the Iranian regime, with whom they had an indirect connection through intermediaries. The court was informed that Iran International, the media outlet where Mr. Zeraati works, is known for its critical stance against the Iranian government and has been designated a terrorist organization by Iran.

Mr. Zeraati, a prominent figure at Iran International, had previously been featured on a billboard in Tehran with a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” message, underscoring the severity of the threats against him. Judge Cheema-Grubb commented on the tactics of oppressive regimes, stating, “Oppressive regimes tend to do all they can to suppress opposition, they cannot abide the serious scrutiny that fearless journalists provide.”

The court heard that Mr. Zeraati’s immediate thought upon being attacked was that it was related to his journalistic work critical of the Iranian regime. Following the assault, he reported feeling “scared and anxious” and felt compelled to relocate abroad due to fears of retaliation.

Eyewitness accounts presented to the jury indicated that the attackers were seen laughing as they fled the scene. They reportedly made their way to Heathrow Airport, subsequently flying to Geneva, Switzerland.

Defense arguments presented contrasting narratives. Peter Caldwell KC, representing Stana, described his client as “functionally illiterate” and unaware of current affairs, suggesting he could not have known he was acting on behalf of Iran. Mr. Caldwell contended that while Stana was a useful participant, he lacked awareness of the broader context or the ultimate purpose of his involvement.

David Spens KC, counsel for Badea, questioned the certainty that his client was the one who inflicted the stab wounds during the attack. The defense sought to create doubt regarding Badea’s direct role in the physical assault.

The case also sheds light on broader concerns regarding state-sponsored activities. Counter Terrorism Police have reported thwarting 20 plots in the UK linked to Iran since 2022, indicating a pattern of alleged Iranian state interference and aggression on foreign soil.

The sentencing of Stana and Badea underscores the serious judicial consequences for individuals involved in such politically motivated violence. The court’s findings emphasize the risks faced by journalists critical of authoritarian regimes and the lengths to which such regimes may allegedly go to silence dissent.