Islamic Preacher Wins Battle Against Deportation from Britain
By ALAN COWELL
LONDON - A militant Islamic preacher wanted in Jordan on terrorism charges
won the latest of many legal battles to remain in Britain on Wednesday when
senior appeal judges upheld an earlier ruling that his human rights would be
violated if he was sent to Jordan for trial.
The ruling offered the British authorities a humiliating defeat in their
long-standing effort to deport a preacher who has been described both as a
senior operative of Al Qaeda and as "a truly dangerous person."
The government had challenged a ruling last November by an immigration panel
that the preacher, known as Abu Qatada, would lose his right to a fair trial
under European rights law if returned to Jordan. He faces a retrial there
after being convicted in his absence in two bombing plots in 1999 and 2000.
In recent years, he has spent much of his time in Britain either in
detention or under other restrictions, resisting government efforts to
deport him.
The case has hinged on whether evidence to be used in a Jordanian courtroom
was likely to have been obtained under torture. But, more broadly, the legal
battles are seen as part of a long-running test of Britain's balance between
human rights and national security, pitting demands for his removal against
judicial assessments, both in Britain and Europe, relating to human rights.
One of the key rulings in the case came in January 2012, when the European
Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, decided that evidence against
the preacher in the Jordan bombings ''had been obtained by torturing one of
his co-defendants.'' Deporting him would ''legitimize the torture of
witnesses and suspects,'' it said, and ''result in a flagrant denial of
justice.''
In the latest tussle, the British home secretary, Theresa May, appealed
against the November ruling on the ground that Abu Qatada, a heavily bearded
man of Palestinian descent whose real name is Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman,
was a "truly dangerous" person who escaped earlier efforts to send him to
Jordan by "errors of law." But, speaking unanimously, three senior appeal
judges rejected Ms. May's appeal on Wednesday. Ms. May's office said it
would continue efforts to deport the preacher.
"This is not the end of the road," a Home Office statement said, "and the
government remains determined to deport Abu Qatada. We will consider this
judgment carefully and plan to seek leave to appeal. In the meantime we
continue to work with the Jordanians to address the outstanding legal issues
preventing deportation."
Following the November ruling, Mr. Othman, 52, was first freed then
rearrested, accused of violating bail terms that included a 16-hour curfew,
electronic tagging, a ban on Internet use and prohibitions on meeting some
people. The police also searched his home in London and said officers were
investigating "extremist material."
At a recent court hearing, Edward Fitzgerald, representing Mr. Othman, said
there was "concrete and compelling evidence" that his likely co-defendants
in Jordan had been tortured, invalidating their evidence.
But James Eadie, a lawyer for the government, said there was no reason to
believe that Jordanian judges would ignore constitutional provisions
prohibiting "clearly and expressly the use of torture and the reliance on
any statement obtained under duress, including torture."
In their ruling on Wednesday, the appeal judges said the immigration panel
last November "was entitled to conclude that there is a real risk that the
impugned statements will be admitted in evidence at a retrial and that, in
consequence, there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice."
The judges said they accepted that Mr. Othman was regarded as a "very
dangerous person" but argued that was not a "relevant consideration" under
human rights laws.
The British effort to return Mr. Othman is part of a drive to remove
high-profile figures accused of being rallying points for militancy.
Last October, after a separate series of legal battles, another firebrand
preacher, known as Abu Hamza al-Masri, was sent to the United States, where
he has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring in a 1998 kidnapping of
tourists in Yemen and an effort to set up a terrorist training camp in
Oregon.
Since the late 1990s, when some European intelligence services began
mockingly referring to the British capital as "Londonistan," the British
authorities have been trying to shake off a perception that their major
cities had inadvertently become safe and fertile breeding grounds for
Islamic extremism.
Mr. Othman's stubborn resistance has angered some British politicians who
object both to his presence and to the calculation by lawmakers that his
legal fees have cost the authorities around $1.5 million.
"Today's decision is hugely disappointing," said London's mayor, Boris
Johnson, a Conservative. "Abu Qatada's deportation to Jordan is long overdue
and it's utter madness that we can't get shot of this man."
"The British government must continue, and I am sure will continue, to work
with the Jordanians to bring about his departure as quickly as possible," he
said.
But the ruling also fed partisan rivalries between the dominant
Conservatives and the Labour opposition, exposing Ms. May to broadsides from
Yvette Cooper, the opposition's home affairs spokeswoman, who accused the
government of using flawed tactics to counter Mr. Othman's legal maneuvers.
"There is cross party agreement about the importance of deporting Abu Qatada
and protecting the public. Everyone agrees that the court processes have
taken too long," Ms. Cooper said in a statement. "But we cannot afford
further confusion or mistakes. "
Stephen Castle contributed reporting from London.
==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment