A foreign prisoner convicted of a terrorism offence is threatening to go to court to force the government to deport him from Britain.
Sabeel Ahmed pleaded guilty 13 days ago to failing to tell the police about information he had received about an attempted terrorist attack by his brother last June. Ahmed, whose brother died in the attempted suicide car bombing on Glasgow airport last summer, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey and agreed to be deported to India, where he was born.
Lawyers for the doctor, who worked at the Halton hospital in Runcorn, say he has so far failed to receive a date for his removal. They wrote to the Home Office yesterday saying they will seek a court ruling ordering Ahmed’s deportation, or his release from prison so he can make his own way home.
Ahmed’s solicitor, Imran Khan, said: “It is bizarre that we have to go to court to enforce a judge’s order having pleaded guilty. The Home Office is … keeping him as a category A prisoner in Belmarsh. He wants to leave the country because of his parents’ illness, especially his mother, who recently underwent an operation.”
Ahmed, 26, from Bangalore, was jailed for 18 months for withholding information about last year’s failed attack. He pleaded guilty to possessing information which could have prevented an act of terrorism. He was spared a longer sentence because he had read the emails only after the attack.
I don’t think the bit about “preventing” is true as obviously he couldn’t have done so if he had read the emails after the attack.
Isn’t it just an application of s19 Terrorism Act 2000 (duty to disclose information…)?
The TimesNow (among others) seems to contradict the deportation bit, too:
Glasgow bomber’s brother – Sabeel Ahmed’s lawyer — Imran Khan — is likely to sue Indian authorities and the Indian High Commission in UK for delaying the return of his client despite a British court ruling on his voluntary deportation from UK to India.
Sabeel’s lawyer Imran Khan told a daily that despite the fact that the UK court on April 11 gave permission for his client’s voluntary deportation to India, the Indian authorities have not provided the necessary documents for his deportation.
“We are contemplating “legal action against the Indian High Commission and authorities for keeping Dr Ahmed in ‘unlawful’ custody,” Imran said. He further added that the Indian authorities are not providing document’s for Sabeel’s deportation. “They are inadvertently delaying matters and are effectively keeping Sabeel Ahmed in detention,” he said.
And there is also something odd with a suspect connected to the case, a Dr Haneef – where the basis for the charge of giving material support to terrorists is that he lent one of the bombers his SIM card prior to leaving the UK.
Last covered here in January – my article on the growth of using civil orders to prevent crime may also of interest – they were debated in the Lords last night as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Well, the BBC says,
The government also suffered another defeat on the bill, relating to violent offender orders.
The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems, asked for a detailed list of what exactly the imposition of such an order would mean for the recipient.
Home Office minister Lord West said there was no one single solution, so an exhaustive list of conditions would not be appropriate as courts would be able to “exercise their discretion”. But the amendment was carried by 127 votes to 116, a majority of 11.
But it doesn’t make clear what that amendment was (there were a number)! Annoying.
Of course it’s difficult to tell from Hansard (even using the excellent Public Whip). Why is politics so sometimes so inaccessible?
But as far as I can tell, VOOs made it to third reading.
Interfering with the liberty of the subject to the extent envisaged in these provisions is unthinkable. As a young politician three or four decades ago, I would never have believed that this House would be seriously considering moving quite deliberately to administrative law and deserting the whole basis of our system.
We used to criticise other countries for having adopted systems of administrative law, and we held our system up as the model for the world. I have been containing myself this evening, but I have reached the point at which I have to say that I am deeply troubled by what is happening.
Rules imposed under UN laws to enable the freezing of terror suspects’ assets are not lawful because they “bypassed” Parliament, the High Court has ruled.
Well, not just that they bypassed Parliament (after all, the Executive is entitled to make particular types of new rules without need for Parliament) but that the nature of the rule combined with the manner of its introduction made it unlawful.
Mr Justice Collins allowed challenges by five men whose assets were frozen under the Treasury-imposed powers.
The men are designated terror suspects but have not been charged.
The rules are seen as a key plank of government anti-terror strategy. The Treasury said it was “disappointed” with the judgement and would appeal.
Sure. God forbid they should accept the judgement and just get on with doing things properly.
The five, known as A, K, M, Q and G, were designated terror suspects last year under two Orders in Council set up to apply UN Security Council resolutions in the UK.
Suspected of “facilitating acts of terrorism”, they were denied control of their own property and money.
Mr Justice Collins said Orders in Council were not subject to the same Parliamentary scrutiny as normal legislation, each being laid before Parliament the day after it was made and coming into force the day after.
He said this was not the proper way to approach asset-freezing and that Parliament should step in.
He gave the Treasury leave to go to the Court of Appeal, delaying quashing the orders until then.
A good compromise for those concerned about judges ‘usurping’ Parliamentary powers. But you see this quite often in judgements – the judiciary don’t want to be a blunt instrument, in effect they say “this is wrong for that reason, try again ASAP but keep the powers in the meantime”.
Jonathan Crow QC, for HM Treasury, had told him the UK government would be left in violation of a UN Security Council order were the orders to be quashed immediately.
The Treasury said the asset-freezing regime and individual asset freezes would remain in place pending the appeal.
A spokesman said the asset-freezing regime made an “important contribution” to national security by helping prevent funds being used for terrorism and was “central to our obligations under successive UN Security Council resolutions”.
Lawyers for the five had argued in court that the asset-freezing regime was harsh and unfair – arguments the judge said were “entirely persuasive”.
He stressed he was not saying that freezing orders should not be made to comply with UN resolutions but said parliamentary approval should be attained.
The ruling comes as a blow to the prime minister, who declared the Treasury “a department for security” when he introduced the rules.
Under them, some 70 suspects are currently listed and bank accounts containing about £500,000 have been frozen.
Solicitors for the five men welcomed the ruling, saying it was of “the highest constitutional importance”.
The men had complained to the court that the orders had a “devastating and humiliating” impact on their lives.
Their solicitors said in a statement: “The ruling today has shown that the government is willing to sacrifice the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens, including the fundamental constitutional right that only Parliament can take away basic freedoms, when they think it convenient to do so.”
They said the rules were not only harsh but “absurd”.
“We have the madness of civil servants checking Tesco receipts, a child having to ask for a receipt every time it does a chore by running to the shops for a pint of milk and a neighbour possibly committing a criminal offence by lending a lawnmower.”
The Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 and the 2006 al-Qaeda and Taleban (UN Measures) Order were made under section 1 of the 1946 UN Act [why doesn't the BBC link to them? They take seconds to find!] in order to implement resolutions of the UN Security Council.
The 1946 Act allows Orders in Council to be used to bring in special powers only where it is “necessary and expedient”, the judge said.
He said fundamental human rights were involved, adding: “In my view it is essential that Parliament considers the way in which what is required should be achieved and it is not proper to do it by relying on section 1 of the 1946 Act.”
Of course, the Government would claim that the special powers were “necessary and expedient”. Is a judge well placed to decide? A difficult question.
But certainly Parliament should be debating such powers.