Man charged over false bomb information to Birmingham Airport
Abdullah Adam, 21, faces a charge of communicating false information to Birmingham Airport traffic control on May 11, a court has heard.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 11, 2026, 12:43 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 11, 2026, 12:47 a.m. ET
Man charged over false bomb information to Birmingham Airport
Abdullah Adam, 21, from Shirley, Solihull, has been charged over false information communicated to Birmingham Airport traffic control, the Birmingham Mail reported.
The charge is communicating false information contrary to section 51(2) and (4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The government alleges that on May 11 he communicated false information to Birmingham Airport traffic control, knowing or believing it to be false, with the intention of inducing a false belief that a bomb was present at the airport.
The matter is at the charging stage and has not been decided. Adam is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
Adam was charged in proceedings reported by the Birmingham Mail on September 11, 2026.
Sep 11, 2026, 12:43 a.m. ETFirst report
Man charged over alleged false bomb information to Birmingham Airport
A man has been charged with communicating false information contrary to section 51(2) and (4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, Birmingham Mail reported on September 11, 2026.
The charge concerns an allegation that Abdullah Adam, 21, from Shirley, Solihull, communicated false information to Birmingham Airport traffic control on May 11, knowing or believing it to be false, with the intention of inducing a false belief that a bomb was present at the airport, according to Birmingham Mail.
The case is at the charging stage. The charge is an allegation and the matter is undecided; no outcome has been reached.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Man charged over Birmingham Airport bomb hoax appears in courtbirminghammail.co.uk
Revision history
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 04:47current
First published.
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 04:43current
First published.
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 04:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.