Welcome to the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Group: J7 Forum Team
Member No.: 235
Joined: 6-November 06
High risk terrorist wins fight to stay in UK by Justin Penrose, Sunday Mirror 18/09/2011
A HIGH-risk terrorist jailed for helping a 21/7 bomb plotter has won an appeal to stay in Britain on human rights grounds.
Ismail Abdurahman hid would-be bomber Hussain Osman for three days after his plan to repeat the carnage of the 7/7 suicide bombings failed in 2005.
Anti-terror officers and Home Office bosses wanted to kick him out but a judge ruled he could stay as he faced “inhumane treatment or punishment” if he was returned to his native Somalia.
The judge even granted the 28-year-old bail at the hearing on September 2 – leaving him free on the streets of London. He is staying in a bail hostel.
An Immigration Service source said: “It’s frankly outrageous that he has been allowed to stay here. This is a man who gave sanctuary to a would-be suicide bomber who wanted to kill hundreds of innocent people.”
Abdurahman has been categorised as a Level 3 convict – which means police believe he poses a serious risk to others. The extremist sympathiser was jailed for 10 years in 2008 – reduced to eight on appeal – for aiding and abetting Osman, one of five would-be bombers locked up for trying to set off explosives two weeks after the 7/7 attacks which killed 52. Osman fled the country but was tracked down and jailed.
Abdurahman was due for release in 2010, after five years in custody, but was kept in locked up until the deportation hearing. The UK Border Agency said: “We are extremely disappointed and appealing the decision.”
Group: J7 Forum Team
Member No.: 18
Joined: 24-January 06
Terrorist we can't kick out: Released after half his sentence but still 'a risk to the public'... the suicide bomb fanatic who's free to stay - thanks to his human rights
Eritrean-born Ali will not face deportation because judges rule he could face 'inhumane treatment'
The Home Office is appealing the decision and pledges to try to have him removed from the UK
By Chris Greenwood
Last updated at 11:41 PM on 25th September 2011
Comments (653) A fanatical terrorist has escaped being thrown out of the UK because it would breach his human rights.
Hate-filledSiraj Yassin Abdullah Ali, graded the highest possible risk to the public, was released after serving just half of his nine-year sentence for helping the July 21 bombers.
He now mingles freely among the Londoners his co-plotters tried to kill six years ago.
Threat: Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali has been using public transport
Government officials are desperate to deport the Islamic fundamentalist back to his native Eritrea but have been told they cannot because he could face ‘inhumane treatment or punishment’.
Ali was convicted of helping a gang of five Al Qaeda suicide bombers in their bid to repeat the carnage of the attacks of July 7, 2005, two weeks later.
Graham Foulkes, whose 22-year-old son David was killed on July 7, said he was ‘filled with despair’.
He said: ‘These people were plotting to commit mass murder - what about the human rights of victims and families?
‘These people had no consideration for the women and children they were trying to kill. How can they claim we should look after and support them?’
Accomplice: Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali knew about the terrorist plot and failed to tell the authorities
The case is the latest to highlight how human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals.
Imposed human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals. Imposed by unaccountable European judges, they place the rights of the most dangerous wrongdoers above the risks faced by ordinary people.
The five would-be suicide bombers were jailed for life after trying to detonate bombs at Shepherd’s Bush, Warren Street and Oval Tube stations and on a bus in Shoreditch.
Thwarted: Terrorist Ramzi Mohammed is chased by passengers at Oval Station after he had attempted to detonate a bomb during the failed attack on July 21, 2005
Ali, 35, knew about the potentially murderous July 21 conspiracy and helped the fanatics clear up their explosives factory.
He was jailed for 12 years in February 2008 for aiding and abetting the Al Qaeda cell. Judge Paul Worsley QC said he must have ‘harboured the hope’ the bombers would ‘destroy society as we know it’.
The sentence was reduced to nine years on appeal and after time Ali spent in jail while awaiting trial was taken into account, he was automatically released on licence several weeks ago. He is now living at a bail hostel on a leafy residential street in north-west London. He has been seen travelling on the Tube and catching buses.
With music headphones plugged into his ears and a bag slung casually across his shoulder, he appeared to be caught on camera chatting on a mobile phone.
It is understood that Ali is being monitored around the clock and must obey a curfew and other conditions, including a ban on using the internet.
He is the second high-risk terrorist linked to the July 21 attacks to win the right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds in recent weeks.
Still here: Ismail Abdurahman also helped the July 21 plotters and has since escaped deportation
Ismail Abdurahman, 28, who hid would-be bomber Hussain Osman for three days, escaped being deported to his native Somalia after judges feared for his safety. Abdurahman is also living at a bail hostel in London despite the protests of police and Home Office officials.
The release of Ali and Abdurahman underlines the challenges faced by police, probation and MI5. There are fears that they will be stretched to the limit as they try to monitor dozens of freed fanatics in the run-up to the Olympics next year.
Research by one think-tank found that more than 230 people have been convicted of terrorist offences since 2001, but only around 100 remain in prison.
Under Article 3 of both the European Convention on Human Rights, and Labour’s Human Rights Act, individuals are protected against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The clause allows foreign terror suspects to fight deportation on the grounds that they would be tortured in their home countries if returned.
In February, Lord Carlile warned that European judges have turned Britain into a ‘safe haven’ for foreign terrorists.
Appalling legislation: Tory MP Pritti Patel says the law needs to be changed
Tory MP Priti Patel said: ‘This is yet another example of how we have got to abolish this appalling human rights legislation that allows terrorists and violent criminals to waltz out of prison and stay in our country.
‘They should be deported instantly back to where they came from.’
Solicitor Cliff Tibber, who represents the families of several July 7 victims, said: ‘There is no doubt it is uncomfortable for the families to see someone like this back on the streets after what feels like an extremely short period of time.’
A UK Border Agency spokesman said: ‘We will do everything we can to remove this individual from the UK and are extremely disappointed by the court’s decision to grant bail, which we vigorously opposed.
‘In the meantime, we are working closely with public protection agencies to ensure that appropriate monitoring is in place.’
A Ministry of Justice spokesman insisted that public protection remains ‘top priority’ and that serious offenders face ‘strict’ controls and conditions.
The worse their crime, the more they're protected ANALYSIS by JAMES SLACK
Such is the perversity of human rights law that the worse the crime, the easier it is for the culprit to dodge deportation.
This is particularly true when countries with a history of ill-treatment and torture, such as Eritrea and Somalia, are involved.
The British government will at least try to persuade the courts to send the convict back home.
Flashback: A London double-decker bus targeted by bombers during the 7/7 attack. A judge said the failed 21/7 bomb plot could have caused even more carnage
But, when the foreign prisoner appeals, he will say that the gravity of his offence means he now has notoriety back home, and that he therefore will be a marked man to his homeland’s security services.
Routinely, prisoners claim they will be met from the plane and immediately tortured.
The British courts normally agree not to deport them – creating the bizarre situation where a terrorist or a killer has more chance of being allowed to stay in the UK than a foreign shoplifter or a simple failed asylum seeker.
Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali certainly falls into the category of being an evil man, given that he knew of the July 21 bomb plot, but did nothing to alert the authorities.
Chilling evidence: A handwritten note detailing the make-up of devices used during the 21/7 bomb attack found in Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali's flat
He was brought up in the same foster family as July 21 conspirator Yassin Omar, and lived in the flat directly above Omar’s eighth-floor bomb factory.
He was also a close friend of ringleader Muktar Said Ibrahim, who had a key to his flat and often stayed there.
Ali housed the members of the plot when the fumes in Omar’s bomb factory became overwhelming, and helped with the clear-up afterwards. At Ali’s home, police found handwritten documents relating to the construction of the bombs ripped up in his waste paper bin.
On one piece of paper were the words ‘detonator, charge and Allah’ in Arabic.
The second man linked to July 21 who is using human rights law to dodge deportation, Ismail Abdurahman, showed a similar hatred for the British public.
The Somalian provided a safe house for Shepherd’s Bush bomber Hussain Osman before he fled the country on July 26, 2005.
He also acted as a ‘runner’, retrieving a video camera and passport for Osman. The camera was apparently used to record suicide messages.
The judge who jailed five men convicted of helping the bombers, including Ali and Abdurahman, said they had shown no remorse.
Paul Worsley, QC, said: ‘You concealed your knowledge of the would-be bombers who were set to inflict even greater devastation than that of 7/7 which claimed the lives of 52 innocents.
‘You then helped them escape justice, leaving them free to strike again.’
It is a bitter irony that human rights judges have now decided that – regardless of the enormity of their crimes – they should be free to stay in Britain for good.
Group: J7 Forum Team
Member No.: 18
Joined: 24-January 06
From The Times February 11, 2009
Sentencing for concealing terrorist information Court of Appeal, Criminal Division Published February 11, 2009 Regina v Sherif Regina v Ali (Siraj) Regina v Ali (Muhedin) Regina v Mohamed Regina v Abdurahman Regina v Abdullahi Before Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Openshaw and Mr Justice Burnett Judgment November 21, 2007
The seriousness of terrorist activity about which a defendant failed to give information, rather than the extent of the information that could have been provided, was what determined the level of criminality which had to be reflected in the sentence.
Section 21(4) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which introduced section 240A into the Criminal Justice Act 2003, gave credit against sentence of half the number of days spent when a defendant had been subject to an electronically monitored curfew of at least nine hours a day.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so stated in a reserved judgment when: refusing Siraj Ali and Muhedin Ali leave to appeal against their convictions, dismissing the appeal against conviction by Ismail Abdurahman and allowing appeals against sentence by Abdul Sherif (assisting an offender, count 12, and failing to give information post-event, count 20), Siraj Ali (prior-knowledge offences, counts 1 and 2, post-event offences, counts 14 and 15, and assisting an offender, count 11), Muhedin Ali (assisting an offender, count 12, and failure to give information post-event, counts 26 and 27), Wahbi Mohamed (prior-knowledge offences, counts 5, 6, 7 and 8, assisting an offender, counts 12 and 13, and failing to give information post-event, counts 22, 23, 24 and 25) and Ismail Abdurrahman (assisting an offender, count 12, and failing to give information, counts 16, 17, 18 and 19) against the maximum terms, imposed consecutively, by Judge Worsley, QC, in Kingston upon Thames Crown Court on February 4, 2008, but dismissing the appeal against sentence by Fardosa Abdullahi.
The offences related to prevention of the commission of an act of terrorism and securing arrest contrary to section 38B(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, inserted by section 3 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and section 38(1)(a) and ( of the 2000 Act and assisting an offender with intent to impede arrest or prosecution contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
Siraj Ali’s 12-year sentence was reduced to nine years, 479 days had been spent under house arrest. Ismail Abdurahman’s 10-year sentence was reduced to eight years. Abdul Sherif’s 10-year sentence was reduced to six years and nine months, 467 days had been spent under house arrest. Wahbi Mohammed’s 17-year sentence was reduced to 13 years, 304 days had been spent under house arrest. Muhedin Ali’s seven-year sentence was reduced to four years, 479 days had been spent under house arrest.
Mr Oliver Blunt and Mr Mark Summers for Abdul Sherif; Mr Owen Davies, QC for Siraj Ali; Mr Charles Bott, QC and Mr Christopher Henley for Muhedin Ali; Mr David Spens, QC for Wahbi Mohamed; Mr John King and Miss Anne Faul for Ismail Abdurahman; Mr Jo Cooper, solicitor, for Fardosa Abdullahi; Mr Max Hill, QC and Ms Emma Gargitter for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE LATHAM, giving the judgment of the court, said the fact that Parliament had passed the 2008 Act should be reflected in the court’s consideration of the appeals against sentence.
Four of the appellants had been under house arrest. Issues of principle raised in the appeals against sentence included whether the judge had been right to impose the maximum sentence on so many counts.
Although the enormity of the crime and the risk those bombers posed to public safety until their arrest, was capable, in appropriate circumstances, of justifying the imposition of the maximum sentence to either, and even to both limbs of section 38B of the 2000 Act, as inserted, it was the seriousness of the terrorist activity about which a defendant failed to give information which would determine the level of criminality rather than the extent of the information which could be provided, which would affect the sentence.
The other issue of principle of importance concerned the imposition of consecutive sentences. There was nothing wrong in principle with imposing consecutive sentences where both limbs of section 38B were charged.
The failure to give information before the act, arguably the more serious offence and the failure to given information afterwards, were separate offences.
But where the offence of assisting an offender was charged, as here, care needed to be taken to ensure that there was criminality over and above the failure to inform, if a consecutive sentence was to be justified.
When refusing the application by Muhedin Ali for leave to appeal against his conviction, the court stated that, on an ordinary construction of the wording of section 4(1) of the 1967 Act, the making of an offer of accommodation was “an act,” even if it was made over the telephone, whether or not the person making the offer made or received the call.