Tag Archives: HIGH COURT

Picture Of The Birmingham Grooming Gang Which The Police Didn’t Want You To See

For once the High Court has used common sense and taken the public’s interest into account in its ruling regarding the secrecy surrounding a Muslim grooming gang from Birmingham. Despite the High Courts ruling West Midlands Police still refuse to release proper pictures of the sex gang. The judge also ripped into WMP for wanting a virtual blackout on the paedophile gang with their names,addresses and pictures kept secret. Makes you wonder how many previous groomers have had the luxury of their identity kept secret by WMP.

This is the same Muslim appeasing police force who went all out to find the EDL members involved in a disturbance in Birmingham. They even held a TV appeal with pictures of those involved on Crimewatch UK.  West Midlands Police were also more than happy to arrest and charge Tim Burton with racial hatred charges for online comments on the say so of Tell Mamas Fiyaz Mughal. The case was quite rightly thrown out of court.

Police criticised for secrecy bid over sex grooming gang

Revealed: Faces of the gang which groomed vulnerable girls for sex, as West Midlands Police refuse to disclose official photographs despite judge’s criticism

These are the sex abusers a police force does not want the public to see.​
Naseem Khan, Mohammed Javed and Allam Shah

The three men were part of a 10-strong gang which groomed vulnerable teenage girls for sex​ – and whose identities the police attempted to keep hidden.
Mr Justice Keehan​, in the High Court,​ said he was “extremely surprised” at the secretive stance taken by West Midlands Police, which claimed the men could face retaliation if they were named.
The force is still refusing to ​formally ​release photographs of the ​gang despite the judge’s forceful comments about the way ​officers​ had approached the case.
Civil orders have been made against the 10 – who can now finally be named as Mohammed Anjam, Omar Ahmed, Naseem Khan, Mohammed Javed, Shah Alam, Sajid Hussain, Rahman Aziz, Imran Uddin, Mansur Ahmed and Sarfraz Riaz – in a bid to curtail their sexual grooming activities.
In October a court imposed injunctions barring the men from contacting a teenager and from approaching girls they did not know, following applications from council chiefs.
The men could be jailed for being in contempt of court if they are found to have breached the orders.
Legal action was taken after a vulnerable teenager was found at a hotel with different men at different times, prompting social workers and police to investigate.
It has since emerged the 17-year-old girl sexually exploited by men in Birmingham is pregnant.
The girl – who cannot be named for legal reasons – said Riaz, 32, was the father of her unborn child and described him as having been her “boyfriend”. He denies being the father, the court heard.
Police lawyers told the court they had concerns for men’s safety if identifies were revealed and photographs published.
Lawyers for some of the men – who have not been convicted of criminal offences relating to the girl – also opposed publication of their names because they said they feared reprisals, embarrassment and suffering for their families.
Mr Justice Keehan, ​sitting in London, said: “I was extremely surprised at the stance taken by the police.
“When I pressed for the factual basis upon which the risk assessment had been made, I was told there was none, the risk was unknown but based on experience, the risk was high.
“I regret I do not understand that analysis at all.”
Police had also argued that there was a risk ​innocent​ members of the public ​ would ​be mis​taken for members of the gang and attacked.
“The surest way of eradicating or ameliorating the risk of misidentification is ensuring the fullest possible details of each of the (men), including photographs, are made public and given wide coverage by the media,” the judge said.
“I am not satisfied that there is any credible evidence that there is a risk to the life of any respondent to these proceedings.
“Publicity about these (men) may cause embarrassment, distress or anxiety to the respondents or to members of their respective families and friends.
“Such would not have occurred if they had not engaged, as I have found they did, in the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable young female.”
He added there were “exceedingly powerful arguments” in favour of the public knowing full details of cases of child sexual exploitation.

A West Midlands Police spokesman refused to release photographs of the men to the media.
Detective Chief Superintendent Danny Long, head of West Midlands Police’s public protection unit, said the men’s details would be “shared in the right places with the right people”.
“We are duty bound to act proportionately to the threat the men currently pose to the girl and possibly others,” he said.
“We also have a duty to consider the impact of releasing the men’s images on innocent family members, which include their partners and their own young children.”
Riaz is currently serving a prison sentence for an unrelated sexual assault and has a total of 14 criminal convictions, including burglary, racially aggravated assault and drugs, the court heard.
The judge praised the police and Birmingham City Council for the “bold and novel step” of obtaining civil orders against the 10 men.

Source

Good News. Dudley Muslim Association Lose High Court Appeal For New Mosque

Good news in the fight to halt Britain’s Islamization. Dudley Muslim Association have lost a high court appeal over land where a they were planing on building a new mosque.I don’t see their need for building yet another one in the area. Muslims have plenty of other mosques they can attend. A UK mosque directory shows that there are already 217 in the West Midlands and listed 8 mosques currently  in Dudley.

Appeal fails on plan for Dudley mosque

February 17, 2014 10:59 am

Muslim leaders have lost their latest appeal in the High Court as they battle Dudley Council’s legal bid to take back land earmarked for a controversial mosque and community centre.

Dudley Muslim Association lodged the appeal after its defence to Dudley Council’s action to reclaim land earmarked for the multi-million pound development in Hall Street was struck out at an earlier hearing.

But Deputy Judge David Halpern QC upheld the earlier ruling. He said while the association may have been able to resist the council’s claim, it had failed to serve a ‘credible’ defence during the proceedings.

And he said it was now too late for the organisation to put its case in order at the hearing on Friday.

The row goes back to 2003 when the association agreed to give the council a site it owned in Claughton Street, needed as part of a development, in return for a long lease over the disputed plot between Hall Street and Oakwell Street.

It agreed to begin building work within five years or the lease would come to an end. But when the scheme came before planners in March 2007 it was rejected.

A planning inspector overturned the decision and the council failed in a legal decision against that ruling.

But by then the deadline for the lease had passed and the council launched the proceedings to reclaim the land in 2010.

The judge said the council viewed the land as a high-profile site that it did not wish to remain derelict.

Dudley Council leader Councillor David Sparks said the authority’s lawyers would now be looking at the judgment before giving advice on how to proceed. “This is a very complex legal situation and as leader of the council I have been very careful to act upon the advice of the council’s lawyers,” he said.

“They will now be studying the judgment fully before advising us on our next course of action.” The Dudley Muslim Association was unavailable for comment.

Muslim Living In Bolton Loses Extradition Appeal Over India Bombing Attacks

Muslim Hanif Mohammed Umerji Patel who was arrestted in Bolton on terrorist charges has lost his high court appeal against being extradited to India to face justice for his role in anti Hindu terrorist attacks 20 years ago. I dread to think how much of the legal aid fund he has used up trying to avoid justice with his claims that he can’t remember that far back. To right he can remember that far back and his involvement in the killing of innocent people including an 8 year old girl. How can you forget a horrendous act like that.

Its every week that some Muslim or another is in court trying to avoid deportation for their heinous acts. It makes you wonder how many other Muslim terrorists are in Britain. Its about time the powers that be grew some balls and stopped the UK being a safe haven for Islamic fundamentalists. In fact for uncivilized uneducated Muslim immigrants full stop for that matter.

Man loses extradition appeal over India bombing attacks

1:22pm Thursday 18th April 2013 in News

A MUSLIM man arrested in Bolton accused of involvement in bombings against Hindus in India two decades ago today lost a High Court battle against extradition from the UK.

Two judges in London rejected challenges brought by Hanif Mohammed Umerji Patel.

The Home Secretary ordered his extradition to India in June last year.

Patel, who is also known as Tiger Hanif, was arrested in Bolton in February 2010 after an extradition request from India.

Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, who dismissed Patel’s case along with Lord Justice Moses, said he was “accused of being involved in two bombings which led to loss of life and extensive property damage” in Surat, Gujarat, in 1993.

The judge said: “The information provided in the request describes how, following an attack on a mosque in December 1992, internecine hostilities broke out between the Muslim and Hindu communities in Gujarat.

“The requesting state’s case is that the appellant was part of a Muslim group which obtained explosives, guns and other weapons and then carried out revenge terrorist attacks on the Hindu community, including two explosions which resulted in loss of life, injury and damage.”

The first explosion was in January 1993 in a market on the Varacha Road in Surat which killed an eight-year-old girl and “caused many injuries”.

The second explosion was in April 1993 at Surat railway station and “caused many injuries and significant property damage”.

He said: “The appellant is alleged to have been a principal conspirator in relation to these two bomb attacks, and to have been part of the Muslim group which acquired firearms and ammunition.”

Part of the unsuccessful action brought by Patel was a challenge against the May 2012 decision of a district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court — he rejected the grounds advanced in opposition of extradition and sent the request to the Home Secretary for her decision on whether he should be extradited.

Arguments put forward at the High Court by Patel, who is in his 50s, included claims that the continuing pursuit of extradition by the Government of India “for the purpose of an unviable prosecution” was an “abuse of the process of the court”, that there was a real risk his trial would constitute a flagrant denial of justice and that there was “a real risk of torture” in the light of new evidence.

Dismissing the challenge against the decision of the district judge, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker said in relation to the torture ground that there was “nothing” in the further material relied upon by Patel that would “tend to undermine the conclusion reached by the district judge that the appellant has failed to provide substantial evidence that he would be at real risk of torture” if extradited.

The judge also ruled that Patel could not rely on the passage of time to avoid extradition.

He said: “There is nothing to suggest that the appellant is now no longer able to recall the events in question, or that the court in India would be unwilling or unable to consider the extent, if any, of any prejudice to the fairness of the criminal trial by reason of the passage of time.”

Patel’s action in relation to the decision of the Home Secretary also failed.

Muslim woman plays the victim and starts legal proceedings against interrogation at airport

A Muslim woman who was stopped and questioned at the airport under anti terrorism law has started legal proceedings claiming that her human rights were violated. The Muslim woman was prosecuted after she refused to cooperate with the police and wouldn’t  answer their questions regarding the reasons for her visit to France. Now she is playing the victim in the whole thing like Muslims so often do despite pleading guilty to the charge of wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.  

Sylvie Beghal claims that being asked questions without a lawyer present under Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8). Under Schedule 7 anti terrorism laws a lawyer would not of been able to advise his client during questioning anyway and she had a legal duty to answer. Ultimately it was the woman’s stubbornness being awkward refusing to answer that resulted in her arrest .Now she is acting hard done to and putting  the whole schedule 7 laws at risk challenging the legality of an essential weapon in fighting terrorism.

If a person had nothing to hide then why would they object to a few questions if it helped keep our nation safe from terrorist attack. The only people who have anything to gain from those laws getting scrapped would be the Muslim terrorists who hate this country so much they want to slay as many innocent men, women and children as possible.

MUSLIMS TERROR RISK AT AIRPORT

Muslim woman in legal challenge to interrogation at airport

2:27pm Thursday 21st March 2013 in News

A Muslim woman is seeking a legal declaration that her human rights were violated when she was prosecuted after refusing to submit to an interrogation under anti-terrorism laws at an airport.

Mother-of-three Sylvie Beghal was stopped and questioned, even though she was not “suspected” of being a terrorist.

Police officers said they needed to speak to her regarding her “possible involvement” in acts of terrorism.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of its kind, Mrs Beghal’s lawyers argued this week at London’s High Court heard.that the entire process of stopping and questioning people “without reasonable suspicion” breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

They said it was significant that Mrs Beghal had no right of access to a lawyer while being questioned and was being put under direct compulsion to provide information.

The court heard she indicated she would answer questions after the arrival of her lawyer, but the police chose not to wait.

When her lawyer arrived after her questioning had finished, the officers did not seek to ask her any more questions in the lawyer’s presence, three judges were told.

Mrs Beghal, a French national living in the UK, arrived back at East Midlands Airport with her children on January 4, 2011 following a visit to Paris but was not formally detained or arrested.

She was stopped at the UK Border Agency desk but refused to co-operate with questioning by Leicestershire police officers acting under powers given by schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT).

Mrs Beghal asked to consult with a lawyer and for an opportunity to pray.

After being given time to pray, police officers told her she could telephone her lawyer after she was searched. The prosecution initially accused her of physically resisting the search.

At 9.30pm she was taken to a room for an examination under Schedule 7 and asked to provide reasons for her journey, where she stayed in Paris, whom she had met or visited and how her travel was funded.

She was also asked whether she had a criminal record and about her knowledge of the French-Algerian community in Leicestershire, her use of vehicles, the languages she spoke and her current and past employment.

She failed to provide answers to most of the questions, indicating she would only answer questions after her lawyer arrived.

She was subsequently charged with wilfully obstructing a search, assaulting a constable and wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.

The first two charges were eventually dismissed in December 2011 after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and Mrs Beghal pleaded guilty to the third charge.

She did so after District Judge Temperley, sitting at Leicester Magistrates’ Court, refused her request to stay the charge as an abuse of process, and the case was referred to the High Court.

Ms Beghal’s counsel Matthew Ryder asked three senior judges – Lord Justice Gross, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett – to rule Schedule 7 “incompatible” with the human rights convention.

Mr Ryder argued Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8).

Mr Ryder also argued the prosecution was an unjustifiable interference with Ms Beghal’s “right to free movement” within an EU country as an EU national.

Louis Malby, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service, told the judges that Schedule 7 empowered officers to question a person entering or leaving the country if they “appear to be a person who is, or has been, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

Any person being questioned was under a legal duty to give the officer any information in his or her possession that was requested.

Arguing that Mrs Beghal’s rights had not been breached, Mr Malby said: “The ability to stop and examine passengers at ports is an essential tool in the protection of the public from terrorism.”

Mr Malby said Mrs Beghal was given an opportunity to consult with a solicitor in advance of questioning, and it was agreed that a telephone consultation took place.

But a solicitor would have had no purpose at the actual questioning, other than as an observer to ensure proper procedure, as Mrs Beghal was under a legal obligation to answer the questions put to her.

Reserving judgment, the judges said they would give their ruling at a future date.