INTERNATIONAL  HUMAN  RIGHTS  DAY  2009

was marked in Birmingham

with a

PUBLIC MEETING

On Thursday the 10 December 2009, 7.00 pm

Carrs Lane Church Centre

Carrs Lane, Birmingham B4 7SX

Speakers included :

Kamel Hawwash, West Midlands Palestinian Community/Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Howard  & Dave , West Midlands Anti-Racist Campaign

Phyllis Brazierr Justice for the North West Ten

The meeting also heard a recorded Message from Amina Janjua representing Pakistan’s missing

Click here to watch the video recording of the meeting

Click here for an interview with Amina Masood (Part 1) on the missing in Pakistan

Click here for an interview with Amina Masood (Part II) on the missing in Pakistan

 

Justice For Pakistani Students Arrested under Terrorism Laws

Bail Hearings

 

At the court hearing on Wednesday the 29th July 2009, the judges denied the bail application to the Pakistani students. The students are not likely to appear in the court until March of next year, 2010. No evidence was given in the open court justifying the students being denied bail. The judgement reflects a travesty of law and a gross violation of justice. Let us continue the struggle to get the students released. Please sign the petition on the Prime Minister’s website supporting the students against their  unjust deportation and imprisonment. Petition The Prime Minister Gordon Brown

 

BAIL HEARING 29TH JULY 2009 for Ahmed Faraz Khan and Mohammed Ramzan

Represented by – Mr Cox and Simon Jackson QC and Khan solicitors

Jackson mentioned the grounds to support bail application including letters from education establishments. The judge had not received them and had to get photocopies made. Jackson said they had been made available to Mr McCullogh the special advocate.

Judge announced 9th November is the deadline for appellant’s statements.

The special advocates statements should be submitted by 14th September.

Secretary of State is to respond by 12th October.

Mr Cox – said the man he is representing is not making bail applications. (Not sure who this is but it could be Zubeir Ahmed?)

Transcripts of police interviews to be made available.

Cox and the judge had a discussion about safety of return along with rule 30. Experts may be called on the right to return. This may include Manley and Laden the home office representatives during the forthcoming trial.

Jackson argued because of lack of disclosure the situation relating to these men may change by the time of the trial. E.g like the release of Janus Khan and Sher Sultan. The security services exchanged remarks on these men and these need to be disclosed. The open statement is not enough and he should have disclosure so that applicants can advance process of bail.

Tam responded by saying the proceedings against Sultan and Janus were discontinued because of the assessment reached. Maybe the 2nd statement will highlight perceived difference in cases.

The judge said he will have to take in to account why some (students) are part of these proceedings and some are not.

Tam read out a statement from the Home Office relating to Sultan and Janus. On 8th April these men were arrested because they were believed to constitute a threat to national security due to their involvement in Islamic extremist activity. That investigation continues….. they were associated with XC (Abid Nasir) … but it has not been possible to prove how they were part of the network.

Mr Cox wanted to know what caused the Secretary of State to change his mind on these two men. There were also two other men released like Shinwari and  What assessments were made of them.

The judge mentioned that these men should also have imaging of their hard drives available as requested by Birnberg Peirce for their client.

Tam re-iterated his objection to bail because they might abscond and because they are members of a UK network associated with Al Qaeda.

Jackson responded by saying these 2 men have never been a threat to the UK in the past now or future. We do not know about the detail of the risk said to be posed by these men - some men were released because assessments changed. This is why disclosure is important.

Tam argument in response to Jackson 's statements is that the assessment was right under grounds of national security threat. The observations made by the commission then were true for the appellants then, although these 2 did not apply for bail then.

There is some assertion Mr Laden and Manley’s statements are set against each other. This is not the case. The view expressed by Laden is the up to date situation. The assessments of risk to national security by the appellants is one the commission should accept. If the secret service assessments on emails are correct then there was a grave threat to the UK . If these 2 appellants are linked to a network then they should be refused bail. That is the assessment made by security services and the commission should make its decision based on this. There is nothing done to guard against their risk of absconding.

Judge announced no bail would be allowed in the case of all the appellants.

Case is to be heard next year either 8th March or first week of April after Easter. This is irrespective of negotiations between the UK and Pakistan . The cases of all men are likely to be heard together. 

28th July bail hearing for Shoaib Khan and Abdul Wahab Khan.

 

Qadri, a lawyer for Abdul stated evidence against Abdul was because he came from  NWFP and because he has links with Abid Naseer.

There were also videos of them playing cricket and dancing which does not equal to them attending a training camp.

He also mentioned why Janus Khan was with them and that if he has been freed why not his clients.  

Qadri went on to read reports from the Dawn newspaper to highlight the position of the Pakistani Government. He read out an article in stating that the Pak High Commission has stated it wants an official apology by UK and the students should be allowed to resume studies.

 

Amjad Malik’s Submission

Shoaib filed two statements which stated Shoaib met Abid Nasir 3 times. Firstly at Abdul Wahab’s house in Sept 08 during Ramadhan.

the 2nd time was on 3rd April round Abdul’s house.

Shoaib, Abdul and Faraz went to the beach. We went on a 2hr drive but never got out of car. Abid was not with them on the Wales trip.

In the 2nd statement Shoaib met Abid Nasir on 23rd March and it was a casual meeting. Janus Khan was not at meeting.

Amjad Malik stated Shoaib is from a noble family which cultivates land. The family have invested a lot in his education.

Shoaib lived in London from 2005 – 07 and came to Liverpool in 07. His College confirms 100% attendance. The local cricket club has offered statements of support, including from team captain Shahbaz Ahmed. Abdul and Shoaib were popular members of the team and they would regularly go out for meals.

There was also a statement from Shoaib's landlord.

Shoaib’s brother in law Mukarram Khan has offered surety. He has a business in US and UK and gave money to Shoaib to assist in his studies. He sent $15,000 to Shoaib and has filed a statement of his finances.

 

Janus was Shoaib’s room-mate.

 Janus has been released in to an immigration hostel and is tagged and has to report to police.

 

In the last bail application the Secretary of State brought up the issue of absconding.

 Amjad Malik argued on the point of

1.    Absconding – if they are not going to Pakistan it’s because they ask to clear their names. If they are a threat to the UK then they are a threat to other countries. There are no assurities of Pakistani Gov on torture. Rangzieb Ahmed shared a cell with Shoaib and the UK has been linked to Rangzieb’s torture in Pak – the UK gave questions to the Pakistani Government to ask him. The same would happen to Shoaib if he was returned.

2.    Mukarram Khan has given his business residence. He visited Shoaib last year. Stayed for a month. He has offered to rent a place in Liverpool for Shoaib until he completes his studies.

The initial notice of Secretary of State said they are concerned on grounds of Islamic extremist activity. So far we don’t know what Islamic extremist activity means. He prays, goes to preaching sessions, has a beard. He should not be penalised for confessing he will continue with these practices which is normal Islamic activity.

Shoaib was not at the meeting on 3rd April which is stated in Abid’s email and doesn’t have knowledge of it.

Shoaib claims he will receive ill treatment if he is returned to Pakistan. Even if they are returned with assurances they fear torture.

They have claimed article 3 protection.

Amjad Malik - I submit Shoaib Khan’s case is separate from the other 6 as he has less association with Abid Nasir. He comes from a noble family and an educated family. I have letters from local district Nazim and MP. His sister runs a school in Lahore for underprivileged children which is run from their home.

Mr Tam - opposing

We oppose bail on same basis as May this year. Unless there is some other ground to accept bail we must accept it.

There has been no charge in assessment of risk opposed.

There is a risk to national security based on emails and their significance.

The assessments are not clearly wrong.

Nasir is the lynchpin of the case.

They would pose a risk to national security if granted bail.

The judge commented on the issue of control orders and whether they could be applied in this case.

Tam responded by saying it depends on individual case. The risk they pose to national security is grave if released and they should be detained based on case by case. He also said there was a risk of absconding because they are single men with no ties to the UK.

In reference to assurities provided by Shoaib's brother in law Tam argued if Shoaib’s brother in law were to move to the UK what would his immigration requirements be. It’s not adequate surety.

Amjad Malik said Tariq Rehman says his future depends on what happens in this case.

Amjad Malik raised concerns about the case being brought so that the Government could save face but the Judge stated this case "has not been brought to cover political embarrassment".

Amjad Malik then continued to argued that there should be a distinction between who was a leader, associate and non associate.

 

 

Bail Hearing Monday the 27th July 2009

A reporting by one of the person in the public gallery follows:

The J4NW10 campaign called for a national picket on the first day of the bail hearing. Those attending the picket distributed leaflet with information on the arrest of the students their subsequent imprisonment as category a prisoners and the threat of deportation they face. Inside the court heard their bail hearing. Some of the proceedings were in secret and public were not allowed to be present in the court during the secret element of the hearings.

 

I was present in the afternoon and was told in the morning not a lot happened. Basically the judge said he had not received a witness statement from the appellant and part of the reason for the bail hearing was to give such a statement. Our lawyer  Richard Hermer pointed out that the appellant had not seen the open evidence and needed to contextualise the totality of open evidence before giving a statement. The court was then adjourned till the afternoon.

 

In the afternoon, Hermer discussed the pitiful quality of the evidence which had been provided. He made the following points:

When the arrests were made the impression was given that there was compelling evidence that a major bomb attack had been prevented, in light of public comments made by the PM and  others. In fact after rigorous investigations, not one jot of evidence, forensic or of any kinds was found, no evidence of bomb-making materials or manuals. There were inherent weaknesses in the evidence provided which consisted of : 1. A photocopy of some pages of the A-Z  of Manchester found in the house of  someone not under investigation; 2. A number of appointments made with his friends; 3. Eight emails.

In fact the main evidence the case rests on is these eight emails. These were entirely innocuous. But names mentioned were now being considered code names for bomb-making materials. Any word, any noun or adjective could be analysed to give it this interpretation. ‘Weak and difficult to convince’ has been interpreted as a code for a low concentration of hydrogen peroxide, ‘crystal clear’ is considered to be a bomb-making substance in code.

No pattern can be identified in these messages In fact the context is quite evident if you look at the totality of the appellant’s emails and text messages. He was a regular visitor to Muslim websites which had the same subject – relationships. The police traced a young woman who said that she had met the appellant through these websites, and they communicated through the text messages and emails. The emails were about a relationship between them and about their marriage.

 

These points were consistent with the police lack of interest in prosecuting them. This was reinforced by the release of two of those arrested.If there had been any concern that they were linked to Al Qaida then the UK would be obliged to charge them with terrorism.

The appellant is entitled to clear his name and understandably his solicitors are seeking disclosure. These are very serious allegations and the appellant wants to have them before making a statement.

Following Hermer’s submission, the prosecution lawyer started making excuses that it was very difficult to provide all the evidence as it involved too many computer hard drives and mobile phones. Hermer asked for the appellant’s computer hard drive details and his mobile phone messages, neither of which had been disclosed fully. It was agreed that this would be provided if the prosecution was told where in the room the computer was and its serial number. The witness statement would then be made by the end of the week.

In course of the hearing the Judge also made the comment that he was surprised that the fact that some of the appellants were registered in institutions which were not bona fide educations was not made by the prosecution, as ‘one might think this had some relevance to the case’. 

We are unlikely to hear anything about bail till the end of the week.

Dan O’Loghlen who was passing the Royal Courts supplied some of the pictures in this article. The campaign is thankful for his contribution. 

 

 

 

 

JUSTICE FOR THE NORTH WEST 10

Picket of the SIAC bail hearing

Monday 27 July 2009, 12.00-2.00                                      

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL

·        On the 8th of April 2009, in a high profile raid, armed police arrested twelve students as terrorist suspects. One, a Liverpool University student, was thrown to the ground and held there at gunpoint for an hour.

·        The Prime Minister boasted of a major terrorist plot being foiled but 3 weeks of interrogations and searches showed no shred of evidence against them. Manchester police admitted they were innocent and they were ‘released’ but ten of them, all Pakistani citizens, were immediately re-imprisoned as a ‘threat to national security’.

·        Moved from prison to prison they are still being held as Category A prisoners, currently in Manchester, Milton Keynes and Leeds.

·        At the special immigration court  neither they nor their lawyers will be told of any “evidence” against them!

·        If deported with the shadow of terrorism hanging over them, they will be treated as terrorists in Pakistan.

 

The North West 10 have been targeted because they are young Muslims at a time when their country is facing intensive bombing as part of the ‘war on terror’, leading to a massive humanitarian crisis. They need our support in their fight for justice

Free these innocent students!

How you can support the campaign:

 Online petition 

Please sign the petition and urge others to sign it as well:
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/28461.html

MPs Early Day Motion:
Ask your MP to support the campaign. And sign the Early Day Motion supporting them, details on http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=38618&SESSION=899

 

Ask your organisation to support the campaigns’ demands:
Please ask your group or trade union branch etc.to support the campaign and its demands (please see website www.j4nw10 for a list of demands). Send a message of support to j4nw10@yahoo.com

Academics support  the North West 10:
If you are an academic please write or send an email to the Vice Chancellors of two of the institutes the students were studying at (Liverpool University and John Hope University) – to provide study material and liaise with the prison authorities to permit the students’ access to their course materials and make arrangements for them to be able to sit for their exams. Details including a list of supporting academics on http://www.j4nw10.org/LettersToInstitutes.htm


Further details at: www.j4nw10.org .To get involved in the campaign please email: j4nw10@yahoo.com

 

 

 

On Saturday 9th May, people from across the UK met in Longsight, Manchester and formed a national campaign called ‘Justice for the North West 10’.

 

The campaign is launching a series of public meetings, a website and protests and activities to draw public attention to the scandal of innocent men being kept in prison and deported. It is also gathering the support of organizations and individuals.

The first protest vigil took place on Saturday, 9th May at the entrance to Strangeways Prison in Manchester where some of the students are being held. 45 people protested. A further public meeting took place at the Saffron Restaurant, Cheetham Hill Road, on 12 May at 7.30pm with 40 people attending.

 

A further protest is planned for Sunday, 17th May at 1pm at Strangeways Prison in Manchester.

 

This meeting of concerned citizens of UK notes:

1.      Various UK Ministers, including Gordon Brown, made statements implicating the students in a major terrorist plot and that their ‘timely’ arrest prevented an imminent terror outrage.

2.      All the students arrested were later released as no evidence was found of a terrorist plot.

3.      Despite their being no evidence students are still held in UK prisons and face deportation.

 

The meeting demands:

4.       They be immediately released and allowed to complete their education before their return to Pakistan.

5.      Where students have suffered, they should be compensated financially and assisted to complete their education.

6.      The Ministers who made statements about the arrests implicating these students should publicly apologise.

 

The meeting resolves:

7.      To support the students in their fight against unjust deportation.

8.      To hold similar meetings and establish local campaigns across the country, particularly in Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham and London.

9.      To mount a vigil outside the Strange ways prison for 6.00pm on the 9th May 2009 following the meeting where some of the students are held awaiting deportation.