|
Al Qaeda suspect
wins right to stay
Fouad Lasnami was one
of the 9 men arrested by the police in raids in December 19th 2002
and suspected of being concerned in the preparation of a terrorist
attack on the Hogmanay celebrations in Edinburgh. In December 2003
charges against all the men were dropped. Despite charges being
dropped, all 9 names of the men appeared on a list and book of
photographs used in interrogations by the security services of
terror suspects connected to the 'Ricin' conspiracy, they were
accused by security services of being involved in a worldwide
Al-Qaeda network in 2004.
On the 17th August at a
press conference in Glasgow and at Mr Lasnami's Asylum Hearing
evidence was produced by his solicitor Mr Anwar that the security
services were targeting innocent people including several of his
clients whose names were cleared in December 2003 in their 'war on
terror'. Mr Anwar states today that 'Rather than saving lives,
the security services are placing the lives of British people at
risk by relying on bogus information. In the process they have
placed in jeopardy the lives of asylum seekers such as Fouad Lasnami
by branding them as Al-Qaeda.'
Finally Mr Lasnami
appeared at the asylum court on the 3rd November represented by
Aamer Anwar, in what was described as a test case, as several of the
men originally arrested also appeared on the MI5 list and have
pending asylum claims based on the same evidence as Mr Lasnami. Mr
Anwar argued at hearing held before Mr D.S.Corke 'These men deny
any involvement in terrorism but because of the actions of the
British Government if these men are returned to Algeria at best they
will face imprisonment and at worse an execution squad. They have a
well-founded fear that if returned to Algeria, they will be treated
as suspected terrorists on arrival, interrogated and tortured and
possibly killed by the Algerian authorities.'
Finally Mr Lasnami has
won his test case on Human Rights grounds. The Home Office have
taken a decision not to appeal the decision of the adjudicator. It
is also important to note that the dossier of names produced as
evidence was accepted as genuine by both the court and the Home
Office. Aamer Anwar states 'We welcome the decision to grant Mr
Lasnami the right to stay however, we also demand that the asylum is
immediately granted to Ghalem Belhadj, Ali Serir and to other men
falsely accused of being Al-Qaeda. Their lives have also been
destroyed and it is not good enough for the Home Office to accept
defeat in Mr Lasnami's case, but to leave other men facing
execution. An inquiry should be held by the Scottish Executive as to
why innocent men have been targeted in such a manner.Mr Lasnami is
grateful to the campaigners, members of the public and politicians
who have supported him, he hopes now to be able to get on with his
life and build a future for himself in this country.
Mr D.S. Corke the
Adjudicator states in his decision-
'I consider there is
real risk that the appellant will be stopped on return to Algeria,
and questioned. He will be questioned not as a failed asylum seeker
but as a person who has been suspected of terrorist links within the
United Kingdom and charged under UK Legislation. As such, the
Algerian authorities will have a very real interest in establishing
just how clean a bill of health the appellant has.
Babar's father, Ashfaq
Ahmad, a retired civil servant, believes that his son is an innocent
victim of the UK's war against terrorism.
Given the history of
torture and human rights abuses committed for or on behalf of the
Algerian state, albeit in the suppression of terrorism, there is in
my view a real risk that such tactics will be used upon the
appellant in order to probe his involvement, if any, in terrorism
and his knowledge, if any, of others possibly involved in terrorism.
Any mistreatment in
such circumstances would be in principle be a breach of Article 3,
at least as regards inhuman or degrading treatment...The Algerian
state is known to use robust methods and in these circumstances
there is at least a real risk of torture, or inhuman or degrading
treatment...I must accept that the appellant has shown the required
degree of risk of relevant ill-treatment under Article 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights… I allow the appeal on Human
Rights.'
Source: Press Release from
Beltrami Berlow Solicitors
12 January 2005
|