A MAN on trial for terrorism offences told his mother he had “done something stupid” by pretending to set fire to a mosque, a court has heard.
Sam Imrie has been charged with posting statements on social media platform Telegram, suggesting he was going to carry out an attack on the Fife Islamic Centre in Glenrothes, Fife.
The 24-year-old has also been accused of planning to stream live footage of “an incident”.
Giving evidence today, the accused’s mother, Joyce Imrie, said that while passing her son on the stairs in the family home, he had told her: “Mum, I’ve done something really stupid, I pretended to set a mosque on fire.”
Asked about her son’s demeanour when he told her this, she replied: “Terror, despair. Despair is the best word I could use. I think he was probably horrified by himself.”
The court heard that Imrie had described her son as a “loner” and a “recluse”.
In her statement to police on the day after her son’s arrest, Imrie said: “I would describe him as a loner who very rarely leaves his room. He has no friends, no visitors to the house, no girlfriend that I’m aware of.”
She said she did not remember making the statement, but agreed that she was telling police the truth.
The court heard that the accused had become withdrawn after becoming the victim of a serious assault at the age of 14.
He had left school, shut himself off from friends and started drinking, Imrie said.
The court was shown posts on Imrie’s Facebook page of Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump.
Imrie said she was not aware that her son had used the messaging app Telegram to speak with neo-Nazis in the US.
She said she would have taken steps to intervene if she thought her son was being “groomed” online.
Giving evidence at the High Court in Edinburgh, Imrie initially told the court she believed her son had shaved his head because of the TV show Jackass, and its star Steve-O.
“They had buzzcuts as kids, they shaved their heads like Steve-O out of Jackass,” she said, referring to Imrie and his brother. I never even noticed.”
Asked why she thought he had shaved his head, Imrie replied, “To be a fool really”, and said it had not been something that caused her concern.
But the court also heard that in her statement to police, when asked if she had concerns about her son shaving his head, she replied: “He didn’t say why (he had done it).
“I would say that it was because of his infatuation with Hitler.”
Asked about this statement, Imrie said: “I don’t understand why you would say it was because of Hitler, he didn’t have a bald head.”
Imrie said she was doing a course at the time, in which a class mate had made a “controversial” presentation on Adolf Hitler.
She denied that an “infatuation” inherently meant something positive. “An interest could be unhealthy as well,” she said.
She said Imrie had being doing “some research” about Hitler at the time.
The court was shown photos of swastikas drawn in a closet in Imrie’s bedroom, along with the number 1488, which is linked to white supremacism.
Imrie said she could not remember seeing them. Imrie also denied raising concerns with her son about posts he made on Facebook prior to his arrest. But the court heard she had told police at the time of his arrest that she had been concerned at comments he had made on Facebook about Hitler.
The court also heard that Imrie had been in trouble with police as a teenager, after writing racist graffiti that said “f*** Muslims” on a bus stop near his home.
Among other charges, Imrie has been accused of being in possession of neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim material and extreme pornography, including indecent images of children and an image involving a human corpse.
Imrie is also charged with driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol in July 2019.
He denies all of the nine charges against him, three of which come under the Terrorism Act.
The trial, before Lord Mulholland, continues.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article