Failed 21/7 bombers lose ECHR appeal

Clockwise: Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar and Ramzi Mohammed

Tuesday, December 17, 2014

The group attempted to carry out an attack on July 21, 2005, two weeks after 52 people were killed and 700 injured by four bombers who also killed themselves.

They have since appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

Somali nationals Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar were convicted of conspiracy to murder and jailed for a minimum of 40 years, alongside Hussain Osman, who is not believed to have been named in the appeal.

The three men had claimed their convictions were unfair as they were denied access to lawyers during police questioning and statements they gave were subsequently used at trial.

A fourth claimant, Ismail Abdurahman, was convicted of assisting one of the suspected bombers and sentenced to eight years in prison.

He claimed his trial was unfair as a statement he provided as a witness, rather than a suspect, was used against him.

Human rights judges at the ECHR in Strasbourg, France, found that no prejudice had been caused to the failed bombers' right to a fair trial as a result of the failure to provide access to a lawyer before and during their interviews or to provide access to a lawyer to Abdurahman during his initial police interview.

All four men have three months to refer their appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR for a final attempt to challenge their convictions.

Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar, who were born in 1978, 1981 and 1981 respectively, were temporarily refused legal assistance for police "safety interviews" - conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life - to be held.

The terrorists' statements during those interviews, denying any involvement in the events, were later admitted as evidence at their trial.

Unlike the other applicants, Abdurahman was not suspected of detonating a bomb and was interviewed 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 provided to that suspect.

Rather than arrest him and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance, police continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement from him. He was subsequently offered legal advice and consistently referred to his written statement.

This statement was subsequently admitted as evidence at his trial.

Judges at the ECHR said: "It has been convincingly established that at the time of the impugned police interviews there was an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety and that this threat provided compelling reasons which justified the temporary delay of all four applicants' access to lawyers."

The failed bombers claimed they took home-made explosives in rucksacks on to the Underground network as an elaborate hoax to protest against the war in Iraq.

Home
Email

Hiiraan Online