A tense morning unfolded outside the US embassy in London last November when a suspicious package triggered a full lockdown. Bomb disposal experts raced to the scene, bracing for the worst after a civilian guard spotted what appeared to be a crude explosive device.
The object, discovered in a nearby alleyway, consisted of an old iPad wired to what looked like firework components. The guard, understandably panicked, immediately alerted authorities, initiating a swift and comprehensive security response.
Police quickly established a cordon, closing surrounding roads as the embassy went into lockdown. A controlled explosion was carried out by bomb disposal officers as a precautionary measure, adding to the mounting tension.
The man responsible, 44-year-old Daniel Parmenter, readily admitted to leaving the package. However, his explanation was far from what investigators expected – he claimed it was an elaborate art installation, a form of “sophisticated graffiti.”
Parmenter, who has autism spectrum disorder, insisted he intended no harm and believed embassy staff would recognize his work. He described the package as an “art object,” a carefully constructed piece meant to provoke thought, not fear.
The contents, once deemed safe after an X-ray, revealed a curious collection: a Notting Hill Carnival book, a safety pin, half a bar of chocolate, and an assortment of jar lids. Hardly the components of a dangerous weapon.
Further investigation of Parmenter’s home uncovered other unusual items, including a rucksack resembling a military design and a device that initially appeared to be a petrol bomb. However, explosives experts determined these were also non-viable.
The prosecution detailed a series of peculiar additions to the installation, including a piece of paper labeled “Danger Chemicals” and a box of dates addressed to the US Navy with warnings about radiation hazards. These elements undoubtedly contributed to the initial alarm.
Despite the significant disruption and the initial fear, a jury at the Old Bailey found Parmenter not guilty of placing an article with intent. The verdict came as a surprise, as Parmenter had inadvertently left the court during deliberations, believing the proceedings were concluded.
His barrister explained that Parmenter, cycling back to the court as quickly as possible, had “completely misunderstood” the situation. He was genuinely shocked to learn of the verdict in his absence, a testament to his unique perspective and the complexities of the case.
