In a High Court room in London last month, Mina Dich sat silently as the judge delivered a ruling that many thought would finally close one of the most disturbing chapters in modern British counter-terrorism history. After more than 20 years living in the UK, the 51-year-old French national had just lost her final legal battle to avoid deportation. The Home Secretary’s order to send her back to France was upheld. National security, the court ruled, must come first — no matter how long someone has called Britain home.

But right at the moment the gavel came down and the judgment was handed down, something completely unexpected happened.

Details of that dramatic twist are still emerging, with sources close to the case describing a sudden intervention that has thrown the immediate removal plans into uncertainty and reignited fierce debate about rehabilitation,  family ties, and the limits of mercy for those convicted of terrorism offences. What exactly unfolded in those tense final moments remains under wraps for now, but it has left lawyers, security officials, and the public asking whether this story is truly over — or entering a new, even more complicated phase.

The chilling family plot that shocked Britain

To understand why Mina Dich’s case continues to provoke such strong reactions, we must go back to 2016 and 2017, when Britain uncovered what counter-terrorism officers described as the country’s first all-female ISIS-inspired terror cell — a plot involving a mother and her two young daughters.

The story begins with Safaa Boular, then just 17 years old. While in custody after attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS, Safaa used prison phone calls to urge her older sister Rizlaine Boular (then 21) and their mother Mina Dich to carry out attacks on UK soil. What made the communications especially sinister was the childish code they adopted to evade detection: they referred to the planned stabbing attack as a “tea party,” with knives described as “cakes” or “recipes” in an Alice in Wonderland-themed euphemism.

“It’s going to be like me and a few sisters and stuff, and we’re just like a  tea party,” Rizlaine was recorded saying in one conversation. The seemingly innocent language masked deadly intent.

Mina Dich, who had lived in south London for decades, did not merely turn a blind eye. Court evidence showed she played an active supporting role. She drove her daughter Rizlaine on reconnaissance missions around Westminster, scouting potential targets near the Houses of Parliament and iconic landmarks. On 26 April 2017, mother and daughter were captured on CCTV entering a Sainsbury’s supermarket in Wandsworth, where they purchased a pack of three large kitchen knives — the intended weapons for the attack.

The plan was for Rizlaine to carry out a knife rampage targeting police officers or members of the public in the area around Parliament the very next day. Police surveillance had been tracking the family for weeks. When officers moved in on 27 April 2017, they arrested Mina and Rizlaine. Rizlaine was shot by armed police during the arrest after she lunged at officers with a knife.

Safaa Boular, the youngest, had separately plotted a more ambitious attack on the British Museum using guns and grenades, but shifted focus to encouraging the family knife plot once she was behind bars.

This was no lone-wolf operation. It was a family affair — a mother actively assisting her daughters in preparing terrorist acts inspired by Islamic State propaganda. Prosecutors later described Mina Dich as having “failed in her parental role” and bearing “heavy responsibility” for not stopping the radicalisation that had taken root in her household.

Convictions and sentences

In 2018, at the Old Bailey, Mina Dich pleaded guilty to engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. She was sentenced to six years and nine months in prison, plus an extended licence period. Her daughter Rizlaine received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years. Safaa Boular, convicted after trial of two counts of preparing terrorist acts, was handed a life sentence with a minimum of 13 years (later reduced slightly on appeal).

Judge Mark Dennis QC told Dich she had provided “positive assistance and support” to her daughter, knowing an attack with knives was planned. He noted the potential for serious injury or death had the plot succeeded.

The case sent shockwaves through the UK. It highlighted the dangers of radicalisation within  families, the vulnerability of young women to online ISIS grooming, and the chilling reality that terror plots could involve mothers and teenage daughters using playground language to plan murder.

Years behind bars and the fight to stay

Dich served her sentence and was released in early 2024. Almost immediately, she was detained under immigration powers as the Home Office moved to deport her to France, her country of nationality (she was born in Morocco but holds French citizenship).

She launched a lengthy legal battle, arguing that after more than two decades in Britain — where she had raised her children and built a life — deportation would be disproportionate. Her lawyers pointed to rehabilitation efforts,  family connections in the UK, and the potential impact on her mental health. They contended that she no longer posed a danger to the public.

The government disagreed. Officials maintained that her conviction for a terrorism offence involving preparation of an attack on British soil meant she represented an ongoing risk. National security considerations, they argued, outweighed her long residence. Under post-Brexit rules and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, the Home Secretary certified her for interim removal pending any appeals.

The case reached the High Court in early 2026. In a judgment delivered in March 2026 by Mr Justice Murray, the court dismissed Dich’s judicial review challenge. The judge ruled that the Home Office had lawfully applied the enhanced protective standards required when dealing with EU nationals convicted of serious offences. The deportation order was upheld.

For many observers, this marked the end of the road. Mina Dich, the “terror plot mother,” would soon be put on a plane to France.

The unexpected twist at the eleventh hour

Yet, according to multiple sources familiar with the proceedings, the moment the High Court ruling was formally delivered brought a startling new development. Details remain limited due to ongoing legal sensitivities and potential reporting restrictions, but insiders describe a sudden submission or intervention — possibly involving new evidence, a last-minute application, or an external factor — that has paused the immediate execution of removal.

This twist has delayed deportation plans and prompted fresh scrutiny. Some speculate it could involve claims related to her rehabilitation progress, family circumstances, or procedural points raised by her legal team. Others suggest it may relate to broader diplomatic or human rights considerations between the UK and France.

Whatever the precise nature of the “something completely unexpected,” it has reignited public debate. On one side, critics of the government argue that long-term residents who have served their time deserve a second chance, especially if they have demonstrated genuine remorse. On the other, security experts and victims’ groups insist that terrorism convictions demand zero tolerance — that allowing someone who helped plot an attack on Parliament to remain sends the wrong message in an era of heightened knife crime and persistent Islamist extremism threats.

Counter-terrorism officials have long warned that family-based radicalisation networks are particularly difficult to dismantle. The Boular-Dich case remains a textbook example: a mother not only failing to protect her children from extremism but actively facilitating it.

Broader implications for UK policy

Mina Dich’s case has become a lightning rod for wider discussions on deportation, citizenship revocation, and the balance between human rights and public safety. The UK has increasingly taken a hard line on foreign national offenders, especially those linked to terrorism. Recent years have seen faster removal processes and fewer opportunities for appeals in national security cases.

Supporters of strict deportation policies point out that Britain cannot afford to harbour individuals with proven links to ISIS-inspired violence, regardless of how many years they have lived here. Opponents warn of potential breaches of rehabilitation principles and family life protections under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As the unexpected development plays out, the Home Office has confirmed that deportation proceedings are continuing, but with added layers of legal complexity. France, as the receiving country, will ultimately have to manage Dich’s return and any ongoing monitoring.

For now, the woman at the centre of Britain’s first all-female terror plot remains in the UK — at least temporarily. The “BUT…” in her story has bought her more time, but it has also thrust the case back into the spotlight, forcing the public to confront uncomfortable questions once again:

How far should a democratic society go to protect itself from those who once plotted its harm? And when does the debt to justice finally outweigh the passage of time?

The full answer may not be known until this latest twist reaches its conclusion. What is clear is that Mina Dich’s journey from south London mother to convicted terrorist supporter to deportation battleground is far from over — and the unexpected turn at the High Court has ensured the nation will be watching closely.