Law and Rights
The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber is hearing the cases of Ibrahim, Mohammed, Omar, Abdurahman v United Kingdom. The four were convicted of offences in connection with bombs (which failed to explode) on the London Underground on 21st July 2005. In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in 2008 the President of the Queen's Bench Division described the offences as "merciless and extreme" and added that the sentences were rightly severe and extreme. Beyond doubt, they were utterly justified.
The following is taken from the court's explanation of the cases.
The applicants in the first three applications, Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar, are Somali nationals who were born in 1978, 1981, and 1981 respectively. The applicant in the fourth application, Ismail Abdurahman, is a British national who was born in Somalia in 1982.
On 7 July 2005 suicide bombers detonated their bombs on the London transport system, killing 52 people and injuring many more. Two weeks later, on 21 July 2005 four bombs were detonated on the London transport system but failed to explode. The perpetrators fled the scene but were later arrested.
Following the arrest of the first three applicants ? Mr Ibrahim, Mr Mohammed and Mr Omar ? they were temporarily refused legal assistance in order for police ?safety interviews? (interviews conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property) to be conducted. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, such interviews can take place in the absence of a solicitor and before the detainee has had the opportunity to seek legal advice. During the interviews the applicants denied any knowledge of the events of 21 July. At trial, they acknowledged their involvement in the events but claimed that the bombs had been a hoax and were never intended to explode. The statements made at their safety interviews were admitted at trial. They were convicted in July 2007 of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to a minimum term of 40 years? imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused them leave to appeal against their conviction - [2008] EWCA Crim 880.
Mr Abdurahman, the fourth applicant, was not suspected of having detonated a bomb and was initially interviewed by the police as a witness. He started to incriminate himself by explaining his encounter with one of the suspected bombers shortly after the attacks and the assistance he had provided to that suspect. The police did not, at that stage, arrest him and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance. Instead, they continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement from him. He was subsequently arrested and offered legal advice. In his ensuing interviews, he adopted and referred to his written statement. This statement was admitted as evidence at his trial. He was convicted in February 2008 of assisting one of the bombers and of failing to disclose information about the bombings. He was sentenced to ten years? imprisonment, reduced to eight years on appeal on account of the early assistance that he had given to the police.
Relying on Article 6(1) and 6(3)(c) - (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance) - of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about their lack of access to lawyers during their initial police questioning, alleging that their subsequent convictions were unfair because of the admission at trial of the statements they had made during those police interviews.
Criminal Law and Justice 27th February 2009 - Paul Mendelle QC and Ali Naseem Bajwa - How safe are safety interviews?
PACE Code H
Terrorism Act 2000 section 41 and Schedule 8
- Queen's Evidence: R V Ztr - Court Of Appeal
Should there be a reduction in sentencing where an individual provides the Police with information which either leads or may lead to the conviction of others? If so, in what circumstances? The common law recognised the problem and, more recently,...
- Jean Charles De Menezes Case To Be Heard At Strasbourg
Addendum 1: Webcast of the E Ct HR hearing Addendum 2: Links added to various materials On Wednesday (10th June), the European Court of European Rights (E Ct HR) Grand Chamber will hear the case of Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom (no....
- Strasbourg Has Spoken - In Favour Of The Uk - Whole Life Sentences For Murder
: A Strasbourg finding in favour of the UK : The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights has found by a majority of 6 to 1 that there was no violation of Article 3 - (Prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment)...
- Dizaei Loses Appeal Against Conviction At Second Trial
The case of R v Dizaei was considered on this blog on 29th June 2010 and 13th February 2012. In February 2010, Ali Dizaei (who held the rank of Commander in the Metropolitan Police) was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for offences of misconduct...
- A Trio Of European Court Of Human Rights Decisions
Today, 17th January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was scheduled to deliver some 35 judgments. The reader will perhaps be particularly interested in the following three judgments which are all judgments of Section IV of the Court sitting...
Law and Rights
European Court of Human Rights ~ Article 6 ~ Ibrahim, Mohammed, Omar, Abdurahman v United Kingdom
The following is taken from the court's explanation of the cases.
The applicants in the first three applications, Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar, are Somali nationals who were born in 1978, 1981, and 1981 respectively. The applicant in the fourth application, Ismail Abdurahman, is a British national who was born in Somalia in 1982.
On 7 July 2005 suicide bombers detonated their bombs on the London transport system, killing 52 people and injuring many more. Two weeks later, on 21 July 2005 four bombs were detonated on the London transport system but failed to explode. The perpetrators fled the scene but were later arrested.
Following the arrest of the first three applicants ? Mr Ibrahim, Mr Mohammed and Mr Omar ? they were temporarily refused legal assistance in order for police ?safety interviews? (interviews conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property) to be conducted. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, such interviews can take place in the absence of a solicitor and before the detainee has had the opportunity to seek legal advice. During the interviews the applicants denied any knowledge of the events of 21 July. At trial, they acknowledged their involvement in the events but claimed that the bombs had been a hoax and were never intended to explode. The statements made at their safety interviews were admitted at trial. They were convicted in July 2007 of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to a minimum term of 40 years? imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused them leave to appeal against their conviction - [2008] EWCA Crim 880.
Mr Abdurahman, the fourth applicant, was not suspected of having detonated a bomb and was initially interviewed by the police as a witness. He started to incriminate himself by explaining his encounter with one of the suspected bombers shortly after the attacks and the assistance he had provided to that suspect. The police did not, at that stage, arrest him and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance. Instead, they continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement from him. He was subsequently arrested and offered legal advice. In his ensuing interviews, he adopted and referred to his written statement. This statement was admitted as evidence at his trial. He was convicted in February 2008 of assisting one of the bombers and of failing to disclose information about the bombings. He was sentenced to ten years? imprisonment, reduced to eight years on appeal on account of the early assistance that he had given to the police.
Relying on Article 6(1) and 6(3)(c) - (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance) - of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about their lack of access to lawyers during their initial police questioning, alleging that their subsequent convictions were unfair because of the admission at trial of the statements they had made during those police interviews.
Criminal Law and Justice 27th February 2009 - Paul Mendelle QC and Ali Naseem Bajwa - How safe are safety interviews?
PACE Code H
Terrorism Act 2000 section 41 and Schedule 8
- Queen's Evidence: R V Ztr - Court Of Appeal
Should there be a reduction in sentencing where an individual provides the Police with information which either leads or may lead to the conviction of others? If so, in what circumstances? The common law recognised the problem and, more recently,...
- Jean Charles De Menezes Case To Be Heard At Strasbourg
Addendum 1: Webcast of the E Ct HR hearing Addendum 2: Links added to various materials On Wednesday (10th June), the European Court of European Rights (E Ct HR) Grand Chamber will hear the case of Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom (no....
- Strasbourg Has Spoken - In Favour Of The Uk - Whole Life Sentences For Murder
: A Strasbourg finding in favour of the UK : The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights has found by a majority of 6 to 1 that there was no violation of Article 3 - (Prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment)...
- Dizaei Loses Appeal Against Conviction At Second Trial
The case of R v Dizaei was considered on this blog on 29th June 2010 and 13th February 2012. In February 2010, Ali Dizaei (who held the rank of Commander in the Metropolitan Police) was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for offences of misconduct...
- A Trio Of European Court Of Human Rights Decisions
Today, 17th January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was scheduled to deliver some 35 judgments. The reader will perhaps be particularly interested in the following three judgments which are all judgments of Section IV of the Court sitting...