On December 18, 2025, the Old Bailey sentenced Paul Martin, a 60-year-old resident of South Norwood, south London, to three years and three months in prison for encouraging terrorism during the Covid-19 pandemic. Martin, who became a prolific figure in the online anti-lockdown movement, was convicted after repeatedly urging members of a Telegram group to launch violent attacks against the UK’s infrastructure.
Martin's case, as reported by BBC and corroborated by court proceedings, has become emblematic of the troubling intersection between conspiracy theories, social media, and real-world threats. The court heard that Martin was an active poster in a Telegram group called The Resistance UK, which boasted around 8,000 members at its peak. Within this digital echo chamber, Martin posted thousands of messages, many of them explicit calls to arms. In December 2020, he wrote, "It is a war, you better get ready to smash skulls and destroy evil." According to the prosecution, these messages were intended to "stir up the idea of violent revolt using weapons for his ideological cause."
Martin’s rhetoric did not stop at abstract threats. He specifically called on followers to attack infrastructure targets such as 5G towers and CCTV systems, claiming that such actions would overwhelm the authorities. In one message, he claimed, "If groups attacked the UK's infrastructure, then the authorities would 'be running around like flies.'" He further insisted, "If we do lawful reb (rebellion), we need lots of us. And plenty Alpha men and women... it will be a war, and the police will do everything to stop us." The tone of his messages left little doubt about the seriousness of his intentions—or at least, the seriousness with which he wanted his audience to take him. "You do know if it kicks off lives will be lost on both sides. That's the reality," Martin wrote to the group.
Yet, when it came time to answer for his words in court, Martin insisted he had never truly intended to incite violence. During his trial, he described himself as having "fallen down a rabbit hole" during the pandemic, overwhelmed by what he saw as a campaign to force vaccines on the public. "I thought we would lose our privilege of consent, that we'd be forced to have it," he told his defense counsel, Dominic Thomas. "That gave me scary thoughts. What I see on the news, drag them out of the houses, jab them, all this." He characterized his online statements as "just talking twaddle"—idle talk rather than genuine incitement. Nonetheless, the jury found his explanations unconvincing.
Martin’s beliefs about the pandemic were extreme and, at times, delusional. He claimed in one post, "The simple fact is there is no pandemic, never has been. The main goal was to genocide all they can and enslave the survivors and make the children sterile with poison." He went further, declaring, "Vaccine is a poison designed to kill you off over a short period." These statements, echoing some of the wildest conspiracy theories that proliferated during the pandemic, were presented to the jury as evidence of his intent to radicalize others.
Beyond his online activities, Martin’s home in South Norwood was found to contain a cache of weapons, including two crossbows and two pistols. The prosecution initially suggested that these were collected for potential use in terrorist acts. Martin, however, denied this, claiming that the crossbows were "purely for sport" and the pistols were "the kind commonly used in fairgrounds." Ultimately, the jury cleared him of collecting weapons for the purposes of terrorism, but he did plead guilty to possessing a stun gun at the start of his trial.
During sentencing, Judge Richard Marks KC did not mince words in describing the gravity of Martin’s actions. He told the defendant the case involved "recklessness on a very high scale and language of a virulent nature." Judge Marks emphasized that Martin’s messages were disseminated to a large group of people, some of whom "might have been very impressionable and not unsympathetic to the extreme views you were posting." The judge’s remarks underscored the potential danger posed by individuals who use social media to advocate violence, particularly in times of national crisis.
Martin’s defense counsel, Dominic Thomas, attempted to paint a different picture of his client, describing him as eccentric and suggesting there was a "schoolboy quality" to his interests. Thomas told the court that Martin had managed to find employment and had "won the respect of both his manager and customers." He argued that Martin was making efforts to distance himself from his past behavior, "trying to let go of those previous obsessions," keeping "stable hours," abstaining from alcohol, and "taking himself off the internet entirely."
Despite these mitigating factors, the authorities remained firm in their assessment of the case. Cdr Dom Murphy, head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, stated unequivocally, "Anyone who advocates violence in this way can expect to be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law." His comments reflect a broader concern among law enforcement about the rise of online extremism and its potential to inspire real-world violence.
The Martin case also highlights the challenges faced by society when fringe beliefs, amplified by digital platforms, cross the line into criminal conduct. During the pandemic, misinformation and conspiracy theories about Covid-19, vaccines, and government policy flourished online. While most who encountered or even shared such content did not act on it, Martin’s case demonstrates the potential for words to escalate into threats against public safety.
It’s worth noting that the jury’s decision drew a distinction between Martin’s online rhetoric and his possession of weapons. While they found him guilty of encouraging terrorism, they did not find sufficient evidence to convict him of collecting weapons for that purpose. This nuance is important: it suggests that, despite his alarming statements, there was no concrete plan to carry out violence. Nonetheless, the law is clear that encouraging others to commit acts of terror—whether or not those acts are ever attempted—is itself a serious crime.
As the dust settles on Martin’s sentencing, questions remain about how best to balance free speech and public safety in the digital age. The case serves as a stark reminder that, even in the relative anonymity of online forums, words can have serious consequences—and that authorities are watching closely for those who cross the line from dissent into incitement.
Martin’s imprisonment marks a decisive response by the justice system to the threat of online extremism, sending a clear message that calls for violence—however wrapped in ideology or paranoia—will not go unpunished.
