R v Sherif and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Latham |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Crim 2653 |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: 200801030 200801195 200804381 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 21 November 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Crim 2653
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Latham
Mr Justice Openshaw and
Mr Justice Burnett
Case Nos: 200801030 200801195
20081194 200801182 200801181
200804381
Oliver Blunt QC and Mark Summers on behalf of Abdul Sherif Owen Davies QC) on behalf of Siraj Ali
Charles Bott QC and Christopher Henley on behalf of Muhedin Ali
David Spens QC on behalf of Wahbi Mohamed
John King and Anne Faul on behalf of Ismail Abdurahman
Jo Cooper (Solicitor Advocate) on behalf of Fardosa Abdullahi
Max Hill QC and Emma Gargitter on behalf of the Crown
Hearing dates: 22 October 2008 & 23 October 2008
Lord Justice Latham1. The first five applicants were convicted after a lengthy trial of offences arising out of the events on the 21 st July 2005. That was the day when three devices were detonated on underground trains and a fourth on a Number 26 bus. A fifth device was abandoned near Little Wormwood Scrubs where it was discovered two days later. Each device was carried in a rucksack and contained the primary high explosive triacetone, triperoxide (TATP), light bulbs, batteries, wires and plastic containers. Although four of the devices were detonated, in each case the main charge, which consisted of hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour, failed to explode. The four whose bombs detonated were Muktar Ibrahim, Hussain Osman, Yassin Omar and Ramzi Mohamed. On the 9 th July 2007, they were convicted of conspiracy to murder and each was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 40 years. Their applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused by this court on the 23 rd April 2008. The judgment of the court, given by the President of the Queens Bench Division, is reported as R v Ibrahim and Others [2008] 2 Cr App. R. 23 at page 311.
2. The facts relating to the making of the bombs, their attempted detonation and the bombers' movements between then and the time of their respective arrests are fully set out in that judgment. They clearly intended to cause carnage on a dreadful scale. Bearing in mind what had happened only a fortnight earlier, the 7 th July, the authorities were clearly under immense pressure to do all they could to ensure public safety. These applicants, in one way or another, all knew or believed that one or more of the bombers either intended to commit an act of terrorism, or knew that they had so intended, and not only gave assistance to them, but also failed to give information which either could have been of assistance in preventing the commission of an act of terrorism or could have helped in securing the bombers arrest. They accordingly faced an indictment containing a total of 27 counts charging them with offences contrary to s.38 B (2), in respect of conduct set out in s. 38 (1) (a) and (b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (respectively relating to prevention of the commission of an act of terrorism, and securing arrest) and contrary to s.4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, that is assisting an offender with intent to impede arrest or prosecution.
3. They and the sixth applicant have applied for leave to appeal against sentence. Their applications have been referred to the court by the Registrar. We give leave to all the applicants to appeal against sentence. Three, Siraj Ali, Ismail Abdurahman and Muhedin Ali have also applied for leave to appeal against conviction and their applications have likewise been referred to the court by the Registrar. We will deal with those applications after we have set out the facts in relation to the first five appellants. We will deal with the appellant Fardosa Abdullahi separately in the final part of this judgment.
4. Although we have stated that the story of the attempted bombings can be found in the judgment of this court in R v Ibrahim and Others, it may be helpful to set out very shortly the circumstances of the bombers' arrests. The first to be arrested was Yassin Omar, who left London in disguise in the circumstances set out in the part of this judgment relating to Fardosa Abdullahi, and went to Birmingham. He was arrested there on the 27 th July. Ramzi Mohamed and Muktar Ibrahim both hid at 14K Dalgarno Gardens and were arrested there on the 29 th July. Hussein Osman was also arrested on the 29 th July. He had caught the Eurostar train to Paris on the 26 th July, and had travelled from there to Rome. A further background fact which was important to the accounts of some of the appellants was the shooting of De Menezes at Stockwell tube Station on the 22 nd July when he was mistaken for one of the suspected bombers.
Siraj Ali
5. Siraj Ali was charged with and convicted of two offences of failure to disclose information that he had prior to the intended bombings, two offences of failing to disclose information after the intended bombings, and one offence of assisting an offender. The information in question in all four counts under s. 38B of the Terrorism Act was said to be information relating to the activities of Omar and Ibrahim. The count charging him with assisting an offender related to help that he was said to have given to Ibrahim by removing and disposing of incriminating property.
6. Ali and Omar had, as children, been in the care of the same foster parents. At the relevant time they lived respectively at number 65 and number 58 Curtis House, London N11. Ibrahim, who was a friend of both of them, stayed at Ali's flat from time to time. Ali was arrested on the 25 th July, that is before the arrest of any of the intended bombers. His flat was searched, together with the flat of Omar and other areas of Curtis House. It became apparent that number 58 was likely to have been the place where the bombs were assembled. In Ali's flat, there was a notepad bearing Ibrahim's fingerprints with calculations relating to detonators and charges, a handwritten note containing steps to martyrdom, a handwritten list, in Arabic, of bomb making equipment, and visitor's cards from two different suppliers of hydrogen peroxide, which was an essential ingredient in the preparation of the home made bombs.
7. The prosecution case was that these documents clearly demonstrated that the bombers had used the appellant's flat when making their plans. Furthermore, the prosecution asserted that the process of concentrating the hydrogen peroxide by boiling, gave off such unpleasant fumes that it was likely that this was done at Omar's flat, with Omar and Ibrahim moving to Ali's flat. In the communal bins at the back of the flats the police found a large number of empty peroxide bottles, a plastic tub identical to those carried by the bombers to hold the main explosive charge, a pipette containing traces of sulphuric acid (an ingredient in the explosive), some light bulbs and holders (of an identical type to those used by the bombers to detonate the charges) receipts for the hydrogen peroxide and for various electrical components used in the making of the bombs and various documents including a timetable or rota for concentrating the peroxide by boiling, and calculations for determining the concentration of the peroxide.
8. In interview, Ali first denied that he had seen either Omar or Ibrahim for some time. He eventually admitted that Ibrahim had a key to his flat as he stayed there from time to time, indeed some of his clothes were in the wardrobe. But he denied responsibility for any of the items in the flat which he asserted must have been Ibrahim's, and denied being involved in disposing of any of the items found in the bins. In evidence he repeated those denials and asserted that he had not seen Omar for two months and had last seen Ibrahim one or two months before his arrest. He had not seen either of them after the attempted bombings.
9. He was sentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment, comprising sentences of 5 years imprisonment concurrently for the prior knowledge offences, 5 years imprisonment concurrent for the post event offences and 2 years imprisonment for assisting an offender. The last two were to be served consecutively to each other and consecutive to the sentences for the prior knowledge offences.
Abdurahman
10. Abdurahman was charged and convicted of one charge of assisting Osman, and four charges of failing to disclose information after the event, relating to all the bombers.
11. At the time, he was working for a firm of solicitors as an administrative assistant. He lived at 61, Newport Street, London SE11. He had met Abdul Sherif, Osman's brother, at college. Through him he met Osman. He became friendly with them, although according to him he did not see much of them.
12. The evidence showed that Abdurahman met Osman at Clapham Junction Station on the 23 rd July. Osman had been staying in Brighton until then. Abdurahman said that it was a chance meeting. Osman asked if he could have accommodation. Abdurahman took him to his home where Osman stayed until the morning of the 26 th July. During that time, the prosecution case was that Abdurahman was prepared to give him shelter even though he knew that Osman had been involved as a bomber, at the very least from having been told by Osman that one of the CCTV images shown on television was an image of him, and from a picture of Osman in the Daily Star found at his home and on which his finger prints were found. His assistance went further. He collected Abdul Sherif's passport from Abdul Sherif and gave it to Osman. He also collected a video camera which had been used to film suicide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeney v Ireland
...the apprehension of a perpetrator involved in the ‘commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.’ 37 In R v Sherif [2008] EWCA Crim 2653, the accused was found to have known that the London bombings of 2005 were going to take place, but failed to forewarn the authorities. ......
-
Ismail Abdurahman v R
...LJ, Openshaw and Burnett JJ) dismissed his appeal against conviction but reduced his sentence to one of 8 years' imprisonment: R v Sherif and others [2008] EWCA Crim 2 Mr Abdurahman submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Strasbourg Court’), alleging that the p......
-
R v Rudie Monaghan and Others
...art 2 and the Schedule, section 240A came into force, as we have said, on 3 November 2008. 32 24. We were referred by the respondent to Sherif and others [2008] EWCA Crim 2563; [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 33 but we do not think that it helps on this point. 33 If a defendant was remanded on bail b......
-
R v Yeshiembert Girma and Others
...They were refused leave to appeal against conviction. They successfully appealed against sentence: see Sherif and others [2008] EWCA Crim. 2653. 14 Abdul Sherif was Osman's brother. Osman used his passport when fleeing the United Kingdom on 26 th July 2005. On one count of assisting an off......
-
Court of Appeal
...a TerroristR v Sherif (Abdul); R v Ali (Siraj); R vAli (Muhedin);R v Mohamed (Wahbi); R vAbdurahman (Ismail); R vFardosa (Abdullahi)[2008] EWCA Crim 2653Keywords Terrorism; Sentencing; Confession; Disclosure ofinformationThe six appellants (hereafter B, C, D, E, F and G) had been convictedf......
-
Cases: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
...[2009] UKHL 20 305R v Luffman and Briscoe [2008] EWCACrim 1379 12R v Mohamed (Wahbi); R v Abdurahman(Ismail); R v Fardosa (Abdullahi)[2008] EWCA Crim 2653 132R v Moyle (Peter Geoffrey) [2008] EWCACrim 3059 196R v Robson [2009] EWCA Crim1472 378R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815 136R v T [2009] EWCA......
-
Cases: Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4
...[2009] UKHL 20 305R v Luffman and Briscoe [2008] EWCACrim 1379 12R v Mohamed (Wahbi); R v Abdurahman(Ismail); R v Fardosa (Abdullahi)[2008] EWCA Crim 2653 132R v Moyle (Peter Geoffrey) [2008] EWCACrim 3059 196R (on the application of F and Thompson)v Secretary of State for the HomeDepartmen......
-
Cases: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
...[2009] UKHL 20 305R v Luffman and Briscoe [2008] EWCACrim 1379 12R v Mohamed (Wahbi); R v Abdurahman(Ismail); R v Fardosa (Abdullahi)[2008] EWCA Crim 2653 132R v Moyle (Peter Geoffrey) [2008] EWCACrim 3059 196R v Robson [2009] EWCA Crim1472 378R (on the application of F and Thompson)v Secre......