Skip to main content

Son of couple jailed in Iran ‘desperately worried’ as stepdad’s sentence extended

▶ Watch Video: Son of British couple imprisoned in Iran implores Trump to help secure their freedom

London — A British man jailed in Iran on espionage charges that officials call baseless has had his decade-long prison sentence extended by a further two years, his family said Wednesday, as he and his partner grow weak from an ongoing two-month hunger strike.

Craig Foreman, 52, was arrested in Iran with his wife Lindsay, 53, in January 2025 on a motorcycle trip from Europe to Asia. In February, 10 days before the U.S. and Israel launched joint attacks on Iran, sparking the ongoing war, they were charged with espionage and sentenced to 10 years in prison by a judge who is under U.S., U.K. and European Union sanctions for holding “show trials.”

They have been imprisoned for more than 18 months, most of which they are known to have spent in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.

Joe Bennett, Lindsay’s son and the family’s spokesperson, said in a statement Wednesday that they had received “extremely concerning reports” that his stepfather Craig’s sentence had been increased for speaking to the media.

foreman-1.jpg
A photo graphic made by the Human Rights Activists News Agency organization shows Lindsay and Craig Foreman, a British couple who have been imprisoned for more than 18 months in Iran on espionage charges that their family, and British and U.N. officials, dismiss as unfounded. 

HRANA/Handout

“We understand he was told he was being taken to see his lawyer but was instead brought before a judge and informed of the additional sentence,” said Bennett. “Despite requests, he was allowed no lawyer, no translator and no opportunity to defend himself.”

“We didn’t think we could be any more shocked at their appalling treatment,” said Bennett, “but in this case we are absolutely flabbergasted.”

A spokesperson for the British Foreign Office told CBS News on Wednesday that the government was “urgently following up with the Iranian authorities about the reported increased sentence.”

“A son who’s desperately worried”

Craig Foreman began his hunger strike on May 9 and Lindsay joined him on May 18, according to the family. It is their second such protest, having carried out a previous hunger strike in November 2025. 

“Both have lost a significant amount of weight and their health continues to deteriorate,” according to the statement, which adds that a letter written by loved ones asking the couple to drop their protest and start eating again has been prevented from reaching them in prison.

“Some days you wake up feeling hopeful,” Bennett told CBS News on Wednesday. “Other days you receive news like Craig’s received a two-year sentence, and it feels like the floor disappears beneath you again.”

“My life has become a cycle of speaking to the government, to lawyers, journalists, MPs, and at the same time, I’m a son who’s desperately worried about his mum and Craig,” he said. 

“The hardest part of it all is the uncertainty,” added Bennett. “Every phone call makes you wonder if it’s going to be good news or bad news, and you never really know how to switch off.”

The Foremans had been allowed to call their family after initially being denied calls for the first seven months of their sentences, but since May they have again been cut off, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which says they are also being denied adequate medical care. The organization says Craig has lost 35 pounds and Lindsay, who is also suffering dizzy spells and body tremors, has lost 30.

The couple has vehemently denied Iranian authorities’ spying allegations. In April, British lawmaker Hamish Falconer, who is also an under-secretary in the Foreign Office, said the Foremans were “innocent tourists.”

Bennett says the family has been buffeted by the relentless twists and turns of the Iran war, knowing Craig and Lindsay could be inadvertently hit by U.S. or Israeli strikes on the country.

“When military action escalates, you know, we don’t know how my mum and Craig are,” he told CBS News.

In June 2025, after the Foremans were due to be moved to Evin prison, Israeli forces bombed the facility. Bennett and his family only found out a month later they had not yet been transferred.

Having been held at separate prisons, they were eventually both moved to Evin in October 2025.

“Every headline that you see brings another wave of us asking ourselves, ‘Are they safe?'”

“Asking for mercy”

In June, two United Nations experts called on Iran to free the Foremans. 

“Lindsay and Craig Foreman should not be in prison,” U.N. special rapporteurs Mai Sato and Dr. Alice Jill Edwards said, having written to Iranian authorities in April. “They appear to have been wrongfully detained, prosecuted on highly questionable grounds, and sentenced after proceedings that failed to meet basic fair trial guarantees.”

The British government, which has advised against all travel to Iran since May 2022, previously called the decade-long sentence “completely appalling and totally unjustifiable.”

The family welcomed an announcement this week that the U.K. government had appointed its first envoy to support British nationals detained in complex cases overseas. They’re pushing for the U.K. to formally recognize the couple’s case as arbitrary detention.

Asked what he thought it would take to bring them home, Bennett replied said it would require “courage” and “political will.”

If the British government “makes these cases a genuine priority, people do come home. You see that with Nazanin [Zaghari-Ratcliffe], Anoosheh [Ashoori] and others,” he said, referring to Britons held in Iran who were released in 2022.

“Every case is different, but history shows that persistence, international cooperation and determined engagement, they all matter,” he said. “We are asking, with everything we have, for them to be shown mercy and allowed to come home.”

Judge dismisses charges against billionaire Adani, but sharply criticizes DOJ

▶ Watch Video: Todd Blanche to be sworn in as attorney general after narrow Senate confirmation A federal judge on Monday dismissed the criminal fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and several of his co-defendants, after politically appointed leaders in the Justice Department decided to kill the case in May.But in an unusual twist, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis for the Eastern District of New York refused to dismiss two of the counts against five other co-defendants, saying the Justice Department had failed to provide him with a sufficient reason for doing so.In a scathing 47-page ruling, Garaufis took aim at Trent McCotter, the principal associate deputy attorney general, who he said bears sole responsibility for trying to dismiss the case."The irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning," Garaufis wrote. "On the current record, McCotter appears to have eschewed the professional opinions of innumerable officials from various federal offices and replaced them with his singular judgment. The fact that McCotter came to this decision largely in collaboration with defense counsel, and seemingly without input from the FBI and SEC agents who investigated the alleged misconduct, or the attorneys from the Department, SEC, and U.S. Attorney's Office who brought the case, appears to be highly unusual."The high-profile foreign bribery case against Adani was brought at the tail end of former President Joe Biden's tenure, and it managed to survive even after President Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a review into all of their pending foreign bribery cases.But after Adani retained Bob Giuffra and Jamie McDonald of Sullivan & Cromwell, the Justice Department in May moved to dismiss the case entirely.McCotter made the determination after he and other government officials met with McDonald, Giuffra and Andrew DeFilippis of Sullivan & Cromwell, sources previously told CBS News. McDonald has since been nominated by Mr. Trump to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.In one of these meetings at the Justice Department about the Adani case, Giuffra made a presentation that disputed evidence of the alleged bribery scheme, according to sources familiar with the matter and records reviewed by CBS News. One slide touted how one of Adani's companies is "powering India's progress," and another slide said the Trump administration "would not have brought the case."If prosecutors were to drop the charges, Giuffra also said at the meeting, Adani would be willing to invest $10 billion in the American economy, sources told CBS News.Adani is one of the wealthiest people in India, and is widely seen as an ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He leads the Adani Group, a massive conglomerate that owns airports, seaports, power plants and other assets.Adani said in a social media post after the charges against him were dismissed: "I welcome the US court's decision with humility and deep respect for the judicial process. Throughout this challenging period, our faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law remained unwavering. My deepest gratitude to those who never lost faith in us, in the system and in India's capacity for justice."CBS News has reached out to Adani's lawyer for comment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment beyond the letter McCotter submitted to the court about the case, in which he said he made the decision to dismiss the charges "after conducting numerous meetings with defense counsel" and reviewing "hundreds of pages of materials."Judges have some discretion to review motions to dismiss charges, but it is unusual for them to extensively question the government's rationale for tossing out indictments.The decision to dismiss the Adani case has raised eyebrows and sparked questions from the judge. Two career prosecutors who were involved in the case withdrew from the matter after the motion to dismiss was filed. Additionally, politically appointed officials —  the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and McCotter—  were the only signatories on the motion to dismiss.McCotter initially pushed back when Garaufis first started raising questions about the motion to dismiss the case, prompting the judge to order Adani last month to provide answers to the court on whether there was any sort of quid pro quo arrangement. Adani ultimately told the judge no such arrangement existed.In his ruling Monday, Garaufis said that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) requires the government to "set forth the basis for its motion to dismiss," which should include its reasons and underlying factual basis for doing so."It is evident throughout McCotter's musings on 'judicial inquisitions,' the 'separation of powers,' and 'prosecutorial discretion' that he would like the court to have no role in reviewing this motion," Garaufis wrote."However, the rule's legislative history and relevant case law confirm that rule 48(a) was enacted to ensure the court's limited, but key, role in scrutinizing the government's decision to dismiss charges once a grand jury returns an indictment."He criticized McCotter for failing to provide adequate reasons for dismissing the obstruction and foreign bribery counts, noting he was "unpersuaded" by McCotter's "unsworn statements regarding hypothetical concerns of 'diplomatic strife' and 'waste[d] resources,' or his unsubstantiated claim that 'India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington.'"The judge did accept some of the Justice Department's arguments for dismissing the charges against Adani, saying it was "conceivable that the anti-bribery language used in the financial documents is so generic and vague that it would raise legal risks to the prosecution."But he was angered by McCotter's contention that the case was brought by the Biden-era Justice Department as a name-and-shame exercise."McCotter appears to be accusing officials across four different government offices of bringing a detailed 54-page, 5-count indictment out of spite," he wrote. "However, he has not provided a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the timing of the unsealing of the indictment, or the charging decisions, in this case was politically motivated. McCotter's baseless assertion is unbecoming of his office."He gave the Justice Department an Aug. 31 deadline to advise on its reasons for seeking to dismiss the two counts against the five remaining co-defendants. He also ordered attorneys for the remaining defendants to inform the court that they consent to the dismissal.
Read Next Story