July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum -> Mohammed al-Ghabra

Mohammed al-Ghabra, Fixer for 21/7 plot

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Posted: Jul 22 2009, 12:30 PM

Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 18
Joined: 24-January 06

The legality of the financial sanctions AQO [Al Qaida Order] and of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 (2006 NO 2657), applied in August 2006 to Five men known as A, K, M, Q and G is referred to in this recent case:

QUOTE

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1677 (Admin)
Case No: CO/1200/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
10/07/2009

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OWEN
____________________

Between:
HAY Claimant
- and -
HM TREASURY Defendant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS Interested Party
____________________

Raza Husain, Dan Squires (instructed by Birnberg Peirce Solicitors) for the Claimant
Jonathan Swift, Sir Michael Wood, Andrew O'Connor (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant and Interested Party

Hearing date: 1st July 2009
____________________

CODE

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1677.html

[/CODE]

In particular, paragraphs #22 to #30 refer to the case of "A, K, M, Q and G", including thie following paragraphs with regards to 'G':

QUOTE

#30 But the difficulty with that argument is that, unlike the case of G, the UK is not the nominating state, and FCO [FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE] have expressly stated that it is not privy to the whole of the information put before the 1267 Committee by the nominating state. The attempts by the FCO to obtain disclosure of such information, both from the 1267 Committee itself and in the course of bilateral discussions with the nominating state, have failed. In A, K, M, Q and G the Master of the Rolls was satisfied that there was a remedy available to G because HMT [TREASURY]:

"� must know either all or most of the facts which led to G's designation by the Committee. "

In this case HMT or the relevant Government body does not know all, and may not know most of the facts leading to designation. The Master of the Rolls went on to acknowledge at paragraph 119 that there may be "� greater difficulties in the case where HMT knows nothing of the facts upon which the designation was made." That is not this case; but such difficulties will also arise where FCO knows some, but not all of the facts upon which the decision by the 1267 Committee was based. FCO felt able to carry out a review on the material available to it, but there is no means of knowing whether the outcome would have been the same had it known all the facts available to the 1267 Committee.

#31 In G the court could be reasonably confident that if, following a merits based review, it were to be held that G should not have been listed, an order either to apply to the 1267 Committee for a de-listing, or to support an application by G for such a de-listing, would have been likely to result in de-listing. But that is not an assumption that can be made in this case. Although FCO now considers that on the information that it has, the criteria for listing are not made out, the possibility that 1267 Committee may decide otherwise cannot be excluded. As was acknowledged on behalf of FCO, the conclusion reached by it on its review, is not determinative of the decision that will be taken by the 1267 Committee.

#32 In those circumstances, and to adopt the phraseology of Sedley LJ at paragraph 147 of his judgment, no effective form of judicial review is available to challenge the listing. I therefore conclude that this case [HAY] does fall into the category of case that it was foreseen by the Court of Appeal could fall out with the solution that it adopted in A, K, M, Q and G.

#33 In the light of the Master of the Rolls' observation at paragraph 120, that he "�would leave the possible problems in such a case to be solved when they arise", it is then necessary to consider whether there is a solution to the problem presented by this case that would enable the claimant to mount an effective challenge to his listing. Given that the problem arises from the fact that the full facts upon which the designation is made are not known to FCO, it is difficult to see how it could be solved without their disclosure. No other solution to the problem was suggested by the parties.

Note that in paragraphs #47 & #48, the judge states that the AQO [Al Qaida Order], in its application to the claimant HAY, is 'ultra vires' ("beyond powers" ...conduct by a corporation or its officers that exceeds the powers granted by law....)

Sinclair

Posted: Jul 22 2009, 12:45 PM

Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 18
Joined: 24-January 06

QUOTE

Alleged al-Qaeda man banned from running charity
By Nick Sommerlad And Jon Clements
18/10/2008

An alleged al-Qaeda man linked to the 21/7 bombers has been banned from running a charity for Muslim terrorists in British jails.

Syrian-born Mohammed al Ghabra was designated a terrorist by the UN and the US in 2006 and accused of sending Brit recruits to Pakistan for training.

The British national was a trustee Of the Al Ikhlas Foundation, a South London charity also known as the Muslim Prisoner Support Group.

It sends cash to inmates, including some convicted of terrorism-related offences. Al Ghabra, 28, of Forest Gate, East London, has repeatedly denied being a terrorist but the Charity Commission has ordered he be removed from the trustee role. And it said: "The trustees were unable to account fully for all the funds it had spent."

In December 2004, MI5 is said to have tailed al Ghabra's friend Mohammed Rauf driving the 21/7 plotters' leader to Heathrow.

Muktar Said Ibrahim flew to Pakistan for explosives training before returning for the attempted attack in London.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2...15875-20815266/

Bridget

Posted: Sep 8 2009, 10:56 AM

Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 10,529
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05

QUOTE

THE AL QAEDA MONEY MAN

user posted image

Suspect: Mohammed al Ghabra

Shuffling along the streets near his home, Mohammed al Ghabra seems an unlikely Mr Big.

Yet the Syrian-born 29-year-old is suspected of being a key Al Qaeda financier with links both to the airline and the 21/7 bombers.

Al Ghabra, who has British citizenship, has been named by the U.S. as a terror recruiter and fundraiser who has sent young men out for jihad training in Pakistan and to fight coalition forces in Iraq.

He is also accused of maintaining contact with senior Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan - even staying at the home of one of the group's leaders.

The U.S. Treasury froze Al Ghabra's bank accounts in December 2006 and released a statement saying he had carried out terror training himself in Kashmir for another militant group and returned to the UK only to raise funds.

It claimed he was in regular contact with 'UK-based Islamist extremists' and had been involved in radicalising young men in the UK by distributing 'extremist media'.

The UN Security Council named him on its list of terror suspects linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The British Treasury has also listed him as a terrorist financier and has imposed financial sanctions on him.

British intelligence sources have indicated it is Al Ghabra who first led them to the airline bombers through his contacts with them. He is understood to be under 24-hour surveillance.

Currently, Al Ghabra is a free man, living with his mother and sister in a modest flat in Forest Gate, East London.

He is unemployed and describes himself as a Muslim missionary, spreading the word of the ultraorthodox Islamic fundamentalist movement Tablighi Jamaat, which intelligence agencies fear is a gateway to extremism.

But the security services believe he could be one of Al Qaeda's major operatives in London.

They believe Al Ghabra arranged for 21/7 ringleader Muktar Said Ibrahim to travel to Pakistan to undergo training and learn how to make the bombs he and three others tried to detonate on the London transport system.

Mail

numeral

Posted: Oct 2 2009, 07:43 PM

Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 3,990
Member No.: 5
Joined: 4-December 05

CODE

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6247736/Supreme-Court-opens-with-secrecy-order-in-new-era-of-transparency.html

QUOTE

Supreme Court opens with secrecy order in new era of transparency

Britain�s new Supreme Court, which opens today, will begin with the test case of five terrorist suspects who are challenging United Nations orders freezing their assets.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Published: 4:45PM BST 30 Sep 2009

Despite the claims of a new era of transparency and openness, which includes releasing TV footage of proceedings for the first time, all five suspects have been granted anonymity.

They include a Syrian living in East London who allegedly channeled recruits to al-Qaeda and was associated with both the July 21 and airline gangs.

The man, who can only be referred to as �G� was under surveillance by MI5 in December 2004 when one of his associates drove Muktar Ibrahim, the leader of the July 21 gang, and two others to Heathrow airport where they flew to Pakistan.

He was also good friends with Umar Islam, one of the �footsoldiers� in the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners, who lived with the associate in Forest Gate and was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month for conspiracy to murder.

The US government alleges G has �backed al-Qaeda and other violent jihadist groups, facilitating travel for recruits seeking to meet with al-Qa�eda leaders and take part in terrorist training.�

He and the other men, referred to as A, K, M and Q say the �Al-Qaeda orders� against them are unlawful because they are not allowed to see the evidence on which they are based.

They have won their case in the High Court but it was overturned in the Court of Appeal. It will now be head by a bench of seven judges, drawn from a panel of 12, as the first case in the new Supreme Court next week.

The court, housed in the former Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square in central London, replaces the House of Lords as the highest court in the land and opens with the swearing in of the judges today.

Another of the first cases is that of A v B, which involves an MI5 officer who is challenging an attempt by MI5 to block the publication of his memoirs.

He is challenging a ruling that the matter be dealt with by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which meets behind closed doors.

Sinclair

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 01:52 PM

Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 2,834
Member No.: 18
Joined: 24-January 06

QUOTE

Supreme Court to hear terror appeal
(UKPA) � 7 hours ago [5th October 2009]

A hotly-disputed row over the legality of asset-freezing orders imposed by the Treasury on terror suspects will re-emerge as the first substantive appeal to be heard by the newly-constituted Supreme Court.

A panel of seven Supreme Court Justices is set to hear an appeal in which five suspects, named only as G, A, K, M and Q, challenge financial orders freezing their bank accounts and requiring them to apply to the Treasury for living expenses.

Last year, a High Court judge outlawed the Treasury's powers to freeze suspects' accounts as "unfair" and a breach of fundamental rights.

But Mr Justice Collins' decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

More than 50 people living in Britain are believed to be on the Treasury sanctions list.

People on the list even have to apply to the Treasury for permission to spend money on groceries, and anyone who provides them with "an economic resource" is liable to criminal proceedings.

The Treasury says it is committed to preventing funds being used for terrorist purposes and that this is central to the UK's obligations under successive UN Security Council Resolutions to combat global terrorism.

The Supreme Court hearing is set for four days.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/a...g-VnY0RXFWGqdxQ

Bridget

Posted: Oct 6 2009, 09:23 AM

Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 10,529
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05

QUOTE

From The Times
October 6, 2009
'Terrorist financier' suspect named in Supreme Court's first ruling
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

A terrorist suspect accused of being a key al-Qaeda financier was named yesterday as Mohammed al-Ghabra by the Supreme Court in London. In its first ruling, the new court agreed that the media should be able to identify one of four men appealing against orders freezing their assets.

All the men, suspected of supplying funds to terrorists, were identified by initials. But the seven-strong panel of Supreme Court justices ruled that the anonymity order on Mr al-Ghabra, formerly known as G, should be lifted.

The decision came after a challenge by six media organisations, including The Times. Geoffrey Robertson, QC, for the media groups, told the justices that the anonymity orders had been first granted without the media having been notified or given the chance to make representations as they were entitled to do under the Human Rights Act. The names of the men were newsworthy and, in any case, people who initiated court proceedings should expect their names to be known, he said.

Tim Owen, QC, representing three of the men, said that the case involved �fundamental constitutional issues� about the power of the government executive to make laws without parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

Mr al-Ghabra, 29, from Forest Gate, East London, who has British citizenship, has been named by the US as a terrorism recruiter and fundraiser. He is accused of keeping contact with senior al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan and of having links with the 21/7 bombers. The other appellants will have their orders reviewed this week.

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | 21/7: The day the 'bombers' had no bombs | Next Newest »