LONDON — A man who opposed vaccines and incited violence against key figures in public health was sentenced to five years in prison after being found guilty of terrorism encouragement. The conviction stems from his aggressive online rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic, with messages posted on the Telegram platform.

The presiding judge remarked on how 55-year-old Patrick Ruane exhibited a “compulsive and obsessive” disdain for vaccines. His threatening messages included a graphic suggestion of violently attacking the UK’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty. Ruane proposed that those responsible for the COVID-19 vaccine should be “hunted down and executed,” and even went so far as to instruct others to locate these individuals and assemble a “kill squad” to carry out the attacks in their homes.

In one particularly alarming discussion, Ruane detailed using a rounders bat or a metal mace to hit Whitty on the head, which he claimed would leave him incapacitated for life. He also referenced the tactics of the Irish Republican Army, advocating for attacks on vaccine laboratories and 5G infrastructure.

Acting Commander Gareth Rees from the Metropolitan Police Counterterrorism Command highlighted the seriousness of Ruane’s statements, emphasizing that they were not mere online banter; rather, they were calculated calls to inflict harm. The investigation into Ruane’s posts began in 2021, sparked by the alarming content he disseminated.

Prosecutor Julia Faure Walker noted that Ruane’s messages gained significant traction, reaching a vast audience through Telegram groups, one of which boasted over 18,000 members, while another had around 8,000. Ruane, who works as an audio producer for films, was arrested in November 2021 and was charged nearly two years later. His trial at London’s Central Criminal Court culminated in a conviction in September on two counts of promoting terrorism.

When delivering the sentence, Judge Richard Marks labeled Ruane’s content as “extremely dangerous” during a particularly unpredictable period. He acknowledged Ruane’s right to express his views but pointed out that he had crossed a line into criminal territory. “You were entitled to voice your opinions strongly,” the judge stated, “yet you chose to escalate your rhetoric to a level that warranted this conviction.”