司法 · 曼彻斯特恐怖主义案件

两名男子因涉嫌密谋用炸弹袭击曼彻斯特犹太社区而被羁押

检方指控两人侦察一座犹太教堂和一座博物馆，并讨论氯气炸弹零部件。没有报道称袭击已经发生；下一次庭审安排在10月23日。

播出 文字 阅读需 7 分钟37 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report
与 HeyDex 一起探索

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 3 天

1 篇报道25 家媒体37 个来源1 个视频

  1. 第 1 次更新两名男子因涉嫌密谋用炸弹袭击曼彻斯特犹太社区而被羁押当前位置

这起指控称，有人密谋用自制氯气炸弹袭击曼彻斯特的犹太社区。现有报道并未证实是否有一枚完成的装置，也未证实警方是否缴获了炸弹或其零部件。这一区别很重要：这是一起针对涉嫌准备行为提起的诉讼，而非据报道已经发生的袭击或已被证实的犯罪。1

2026年10月3日，被告萨拉姆·阿赫马迪扬和拉赫曼·萨利希在威斯敏斯特治安法院被还押候审。地区法官尼娜·滕皮亚下令继续羁押两人；他们下一次出庭安排在10月23日，地点为中央刑事法院。庭审中，两人均未作答辩。两人均未被判有罪；在这一阶段未作答辩并不构成承认有罪。5 14

控方将希顿公园犹太教堂和曼彻斯特犹太博物馆列为预定目标。对犹太居民来说，这些指控涉及礼拜场所、社区生活以及犹太历史的保存。指控的严重性并不意味着可以免除区分控方指称与法院认定事实的责任。6

从被捕到下一次列明的庭审

  1. 2026年9月20日

    两名男子均在曼彻斯特被捕。

    2
  2. 2026年10月2日

    警方和英国皇家检察署宣布提出恐怖主义相关指控。

    23
  3. 2026年10月3日

    两人均在威斯敏斯特治安法院出庭，未作答辩，并被还押候审。

    514
  4. 2026年10月23日——已排期

    他们下一次出庭安排在中央刑事法院。

    514

英国大都会警察局称，阿赫马迪扬36岁，出生于1990年3月5日，居住在利物浦；萨利希34岁，出生于1991年10月28日，居住在索尔福德。两人均为伊朗国民。起诉记录和庭审报道确认了他们姓名的上述拼写，并纠正了最初写作“Salah Ammajane”和“Rahman Salihai”的版本。1 2 4

关于萨利希的年龄，另有一处尚未解决的差异。英国皇家检察署10月2日的公告称他35岁，而警方记录和10月3日的庭审报道称他34岁。BBC的摘录也存在不同说法。按警方记录中的出生日期，他在出庭时应为34岁，并将在10月28日满35岁，但这一计算无法解释不同报道中年龄的差异。2 3 4 8

控方必须证明什么

指控是参与准备恐怖主义行为，报道援引的是《2006年恐怖主义法》第5条。英国皇家检察署将指控描述为准备实施恐怖主义行为，或协助他人实施此类行为，时间为2026年9月20日或之前。涉嫌行为的起始日期尚未确定。完整的起诉书和更确切的法定细分条款无法查明；关于完整的法案和条款信息，有庭审报道支持，但官方起诉摘录并不完整。3 14

《曼彻斯特晚报》报道了有关对曼彻斯特犹太社区进行“敌对侦察”的指控，并将犹太教堂和博物馆列为目标。美联社发布于PBS的报道称，检方指控有人监视该犹太教堂并研究如何袭击那里。现有报道没有证实具体进行了哪些侦察活动、活动日期为何，也没有说明据称每名被告在各地点分别做了什么。某机构被列为涉嫌目标，并不证明那里发生过袭击。6 12

Sky News报道，反恐警察指称，两人使用加密应用程序与他人通信，讨论获取自制氯气炸弹零部件的事。这是关于通信和意图获取零部件的指控，并不能证明所有必要材料都已取得，也不能证明装置已经完成。1

现有材料没有指出相关应用程序、展示相关消息、列出所有参与者或具体说明零部件。材料也没有确定警方是否缴获了炸弹或相关材料。这些信息缺失，不能被公平地解读为警方缴获了装置，也不能被解读为警方一无所获。控方必须证明所指称的行为，以及每名被告与该行为的关联。

此案还涉及与一名据信身在伊朗的第三方接触的指控。Sky News将这一指控归于检方；The Sun报道的措辞较为审慎，称这名海外联系人“可能在伊朗”。此人的身份和所在地尚未确定。1 15

日历日期不是袭击时间

逮捕发生在9月20日星期日的曼彻斯特。Sky News称地点在北区，但现有的英国大都会警察局摘录仅确认地点为曼彻斯特。提及牛顿街现场的照片说明文字，不能独立证实逮捕地点。具体时刻仍不清楚。1 2 23

9月20日是赎罪日前夕，即犹太人的赎罪日之前夜。Hebcal和Chabad证实，5787年赎罪日于那个星期日的日落时开始，并于9月21日星期一入夜时结束。Chabad称，禁食从日落前几分钟开始，持续到入夜之后。28 29 31

这证实了与逮捕日期相关的日历描述，但不能证实预定的袭击时刻。此处无法确定曼彻斯特当地具体的守节时间；由于逮捕时刻不明，也无法判断逮捕是在日落前还是日落后。仅凭日期不能证明有人计划在礼拜期间发动袭击。

《犹太纪事报》称，内政大臣沙巴娜·马哈茂德确认，两人均于“数年前”乘小船抵达英国。她完整的声明及其确切发布时间无法查明。这一有限的入境经历既不能确定两人被捕时的移民身份，也不能解释或证明所指称的恐怖主义行为。19

英国大都会警察局在反恐警务调查后宣布提出指控。现有材料没有说明由哪支警队或哪个地区部门主导行动、实施逮捕或进行搜查。官方摘录证实了逮捕和宣布起诉的消息，但并未独立核实报道中的每项行动细节。2

10月23日是目前列出的下一次庭审日期，不是宣判期限。关键问题仍包括将呈交什么证据、每名被告将如何回应，以及这些指控能否得到证实。已确认的情况是，两名被告在押并面临一项准备恐怖主义行为的指控——并非已经发生袭击、已证实缴获炸弹或已被判有罪。5 14

本报道的消息来源

Sky News：10月3日庭审报道。1 英国大都会警察局：宣布起诉。2 英国皇家检察署：起诉公告。3

BBC News：庭审报道和起诉报道。4 8 Inkl：庭审报道摘录。5《曼彻斯特晚报》：涉嫌目标及庭审情况。6 The Standard：庭审报道。7

《卫报》：10月3日庭审报道。9《犹太纪事报》：庭审报道。10 RTÉ：有关监视犹太教堂的指控。11 美联社/PBS：检方说法。12 BBC.com.im：转载的庭审报道摘录。13 London Daily News：指控、答辩及羁押报道。14

The Sun：有关海外联系人的指控。15 TNNews.ai：案件报道。16 Yahoo News UK：庭审报道。17 The Independent：起诉报道。18

《犹太纪事报》：起诉报道及马哈茂德关于入境经历的声明。19《每日电讯报》：起诉报道。20 The Standard：起诉报道。21《以色列时报》：有关逮捕日期及赎罪日的报道。22

《曼彻斯特晚报》：庭审前的起诉报道。23《卫报》：10月2日的起诉报道。24 My London：案件报道。25《贝尔法斯特电讯报》：起诉报道摘录。26 KentOnline：起诉报道摘录。27

Hebcal：2026年赎罪日日期。28 Chabad：节日日期概述及守节指南。29 31 Hebcal：以色列5787年历。30

Hebcal：5787年节日日历、赎罪日概述、散居地日历及2026年节日日历。32 33 34 35 36 Am Hazak：2026年赎罪日日历。37

播出原貌 20 行
  1. A judge remanded two men in custody over an alleged plot against Manchester’s Jewish community.
  2. The alleged targets include Heaton Park Synagogue and Manchester Jewish Museum—institutions used for worship, community life and preserving Jewish history. Neither defendant has been found guilty, and no attack is reported in this case.
  3. What is established about the case, and what still has to be proved?
  4. Salam Ahmadyan, 36, of Liverpool, and Rahman Salehi, 34, of Salford, are the two defendants. Both are Iranian nationals. Ahmadyan was born on March 5, 1990; Salehi’s recorded birth date is October 28, 1991. These are the corrected spellings of their names.
  5. Salehi’s published age differs by one year: 34 in the police identity record and court accounts, but 35 in the prosecution’s charging announcement. His recorded birth date makes him 34 at the October 3 hearing and 35 on October 28. That arithmetic does not explain why another account used 35, and the discrepancy remains unresolved.
  6. District Judge Nina Tempia remanded both men in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on October 3, 2026. They did not enter pleas at that appearance. The absence of a plea is not an admission, and the custody decision is not a finding of guilt.
  7. The charge is engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts, identified as an offence under section five of the Terrorism Act 2006. The allegation encompasses preparing to commit an act of terrorism or assisting another person to do so.
  8. The alleged conduct occurred on or before September 20, 2026. A beginning date is not established. The full charge sheet and any more precise statutory subsection are unavailable; the statutory citation is not independently confirmed by the incomplete police and prosecution charging passages. The charges were announced on October 2 following a Counter Terrorism Policing investigation.
  9. Heaton Park Synagogue and Manchester Jewish Museum are identified as intended targets in the allegations. The case includes alleged hostile reconnaissance of Manchester’s Jewish community, surveillance of the synagogue and research into attacking it. The precise reconnaissance activities, their dates and each defendant’s alleged actions at each location are not established.
  10. The alleged bomb preparations concern communications about acquiring components—not an established completed device. The men allegedly used encrypted applications to communicate with other people about obtaining components for a homemade chlorine bomb.
  11. The application names, message contents, identities of all participants and particular components are not established. Neither is it established that the defendants obtained all necessary materials, possessed a completed bomb, or that police recovered a bomb or components. Those gaps must not be turned into either a claim that a device existed or a claim that nothing was recovered.
  12. An alleged overseas contact does not establish Iranian government direction. The case also includes alleged contact with a third party believed to be in Iran. That person’s identity and location are unestablished; even the location remains tentative.
  13. No available evidence establishes instructions, funding or operational control by Iran’s government or any Iranian state agency. Iranian nationality and an alleged overseas contact do not, by themselves, demonstrate state direction. The allegations concern these two defendants, not Iranian nationals or migrants collectively.
  14. The arrests took place in Manchester on September 20, 2026. The precise location and time of day are not established. The Northern Quarter is not a confirmed arrest location, and a Newton Street photograph caption does not establish where the arrests happened.
  15. The investigation involved Counter Terrorism Policing, but the operational responsibilities of individual forces and regional units remain unspecified. It is not established which led the operation, made the arrests or conducted searches. Not every operational detail has been independently corroborated.
  16. September 20 was the eve of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. It was 9 Tishrei 5787, followed by Yom Kippur on September 21, 10 Tishrei. The observance began at sunset on September 20 and ended at nightfall on September 21; the fast runs from several minutes before sunset until after nightfall.
  17. Manchester-specific observance times are not established here. Without an arrest time, it cannot be determined whether the arrests preceded or followed sunset. The calendar verifies the description of the arrest date; it does not establish an intended attack hour or prove a plan to attack during worship.
  18. Both men arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat several years ago. Their immigration status at the time of arrest is not established. That arrival history does not explain or prove the alleged terrorist conduct.
  19. The established legal position is therefore two defendants in custody facing a terrorism-preparation charge, without pleas entered at their first appearance. The reconnaissance, communications and intended acquisition of bomb components remain allegations. The prosecution must prove the alleged conduct and each defendant’s connection to it; a charge does not supply that proof.
  20. What evidence will be presented, how each defendant will respond and whether the allegations can be proved remain unresolved. Their next appearance is listed at the Old Bailey on October 23, 2026.

来源

37 个来源25 家媒体1 个视频

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。