header-logo header-logo

27 September 2012
Issue: 7531 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Abu Hamza shown red card

Request for case to be re-opened rejected by Grand Chamber Panel

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has given the final all-clear to the extradition to the US of Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad and three other terrorism suspects.

The five had appealed a unanimous ruling by the Court in April that their potential imprisonment in a US “supermax” prison would amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment” under Art 3 of the European Convention, in Babar Ahmad & Ors v UK (App Nos 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09).

Their extradition was put on hold until the appeal was heard.

This week, however, the Grand Chamber Panel decided to reject the five men’s request that the case be re-opened. This means the Court’s judgment in April is final.

Roger Smith, director of human rights group Justice, said: “It’s the correct decision.

“It’s a good example of how the European Convention protects the outer posts of the constitution and leaves a whole range of decisions up to politicians and decision-makers.

“Some people might think Abu Hamza and Baber Ahmad should not be sent to the US because of the disproportionality of the sentences they might receive, but that’s a political argument – it’s not a human rights or a constitutional argument. So too, is the agreement with the US over extradition, which Justice has opposed.

“Abu Hamza generally gets no sympathy, but the Baber Ahmad case is more ambiguous and does attract sympathy, and we have the extradition case of [Pentagon hacker] Gary McKinnon to come. I think Ahmad should be charged and prosecuted in the UK.”

Smith said European Court of Human Rights cases such as this could be speeded up if the Court was given more funds.

“It is short of funding and has a massive backlog of about 100,000 cases. This means cases can go into a black hole.”

Hamza faces charges on 11 different counts in the US, related to the taking of 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, advocating violent jihad in Afghanistan in 2001 and conspiring to establish a jihad training camp in Oregon, US between June 2000 and December 2001.

Ahmad, an IT specialist who allegedly promoted terrorism through a website, has been held without trial for eight years.

 

Issue: 7531 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll