A failed asylum seeker has been handed a two-and-a-half year prison sentence after planting a fake stick of dynamite outside MI5 headquarters on New Year’s Day.
Julian Valente Pereira, a 33-year-old Brazilian national, carried out the bomb hoax at the security service’s Thames House base in central London on January 1.
The occurred the day after he received a deportation notice.
Prosecutor Shannon Revel stated Pereira sought “maximum attention” for his grievances against the Home Office, following a protracted and unsuccessful attempt to remain in Britain.
He had initially arrived in the UK in July 2018 with permission to work, later claiming asylum, which was ultimately rejected.
CCTV footage captured Pereira pushing paperwork related to his immigration case through the MI5 building’s doors, before retrieving the imitation explosive from his bag.
He threw it on the pavement with what appeared to be a fuse hanging out of the top of the brown cylinder.
A bomb expert was called and found the device was made from rolled-up A4 paper, brown masking tape, and string.
The incident coincided with a New Year’s Day parade taking place in the capital.
The court was told the defendant, who was living in an asylum hotel in Uxbridge, west London, had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Giving evidence, Pereira said the device he left outside MI5 would not have been mistaken for an explosive.
After a trial at City of London Magistrates’ Court, Pereira was found guilty in February of placing an article with the intention of inducing another to believe the item was going to explode.
Sentencing at the Old Bailey on Friday, Judge Mark Lucraft KC jailed him for two years and six months.
The judge said the defendant “may well” be deported from the UK.
Judge Lucraft noted police concerns at the time that the fake dynamite was a “genuine explosive”, and that dealing with the incident “diverted them from other things”.
Even though officers identified it as a hoax in under an hour, concerns remained the dummy device could have been “a diversionary tactic in preparation for another incident elsewhere”, Judge Lucraft said.
He told the defendant: “You are of good character, demonstrating some remorse for what you did, expressing regret and sorrow for your actions that day.
“You accept now that what you did was foolish.”
