Appeal quashed: Ramzi Mohammed (left) and Muktar Said Ibrahim (Picture: PA)

Four men jailed over the failed plot to blow up the London transport network on July 21 2005 today lost an attempt to have their convictions overturned at the European Court of Human Rights.

Somali nationals Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar – who each tried unsuccessfully to detonate bombs – claimed their convictions were unfair because statements they gave when denied access to lawyers were used in their trial.

A fourth terrorist, Briton Ismail Abdurahman, who was convicted of assisting one of the suspected bombers, also claimed that he had been denied his human right to a fair trial because a statement that he provided as a witness, rather than a suspect, was used against him in court.

But judges in Strasbourg today threw out their claim saying that the “exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety” at the time of the failed attack, which came only a fortnight after the killing of 52 people in the July 7 London bombings, had justified the police decision to delay the men’s access to lawyers.

The judges also concluded that “no undue prejudice” had occurred as the result of the use of the men’s statements and that there had been no violation of their right to a fair trial.

In a statement the judges said: “The Court noted that two weeks earlier, suicide bombers had detonated their bombs on the London transport system, killing fifty-two people and injuring countless more.

“It was satisfied that, at the time of the four applicants’ initial police interviews, there had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety, namely the risk of further attacks, and that this threat provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay in allowing the applicants’ access to lawyers.

“It also found that no undue prejudice had been caused to the applicants’ right to a fair trial by the admission at their trials of the statements they had made during police interviews and before they had been given access to legal assistance.”

Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar were temporarily refused legal assistance for police “safety interviews” – conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life – to be held. The terrorists’ statements during those interviews, denying any involvement in the events, were later admitted as evidence at their trial.

In Abdurahman’s case he was not suspected of detonating a bomb and was interviewed as a witness. But he incriminated himself by explaining his encounter with one of the suspected bombers shortly after the attacks and the assistance he provided to that suspect.

Rather than arrest him and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance, police continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement from him. He was subsequently offered legal advice and consistently referred to his written statement. This statement was used as evidence at his trial.

At their trial, Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar claimed that they took home-made explosives in rucksacks on to the Underground network as an elaborate hoax to protest against the war in Iraq.

Their claims were rejected by the jury, however, and each man was convicted in July 2007 of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to a minimum term of 40 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused leave to appeal against their conviction.

Abdurahman was convicted in February 2008 of assisting one of the suspected bombers and of failing to disclose information about the bombings. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment.

His appeal against his conviction was dismissed in November 2008 and his sentence reduced to eight years imprisonment on account of the early assistance that he had given to the police.

Somali nationals Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar – who each tried unsuccessfully to detonate bombs – claimed their convictions were unfair because statements they gave when denied access to lawyers were used in their trial.

A fourth terrorist, Briton Ismail Abdurahman, who was convicted of assisting one of the suspected bombers, also claimed that he had been denied his human right to a fair trial because a statement that he provided as a witness, rather than a suspect, was used against him in court.

Related stories
Hostage taker Haron Monis and two hostages ‘dead’ as armed police end Sydney café siege

‘Extremist’ mother who dreamed her young boys would join jihad is jailed for promoting terrorism

Counter-terror police arrest man in connection with threat against West Midlands officers

Jailed: Man who set off explosives in Kennington Park

But judges in Strasbourg today threw out their claim saying that the “exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety” at the time of the failed attack, which came only a fortnight after the killing of 52 people in the July 7 London bombings, had justified the police decision to delay the men’s access to lawyers.

The judges also concluded that “no undue prejudice” had occurred as the result of the use of the men’s statements and that there had been no violation of their right to a fair trial.

In a statement the judges said: “The Court noted that two weeks earlier, suicide bombers had detonated their bombs on the London transport system, killing fifty-two people and injuring countless more.

“It was satisfied that, at the time of the four applicants’ initial police interviews, there had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety, namely the risk of further attacks, and that this threat provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay in allowing the applicants’ access to lawyers.

“It also found that no undue prejudice had been caused to the applicants’ right to a fair trial by the admission at their trials of the statements they had made during police interviews and before they had been given access to legal assistance.”

Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar were temporarily refused legal assistance for police “safety interviews” – conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life – to be held. The terrorists’ statements during those interviews, denying any involvement in the events, were later admitted as evidence at their trial.

In Abdurahman’s case he was not suspected of detonating a bomb and was interviewed as a witness. But he incriminated himself by explaining his encounter with one of the suspected bombers shortly after the attacks and the assistance he provided to that suspect.

Rather than arrest him and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance, police continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement from him. He was subsequently offered legal advice and consistently referred to his written statement. This statement was used as evidence at his trial.

At their trial, Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar claimed that they took home-made explosives in rucksacks on to the Underground network as an elaborate hoax to protest against the war in Iraq.

Their claims were rejected by the jury, however, and each man was convicted in July 2007 of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to a minimum term of 40 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused leave to appeal against their conviction.

Abdurahman was convicted in February 2008 of assisting one of the suspected bombers and of failing to disclose information about the bombings. He was sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment.

His appeal against his conviction was dismissed in November 2008 and his sentence reduced to eight years imprisonment on account of the early assistance that he had given to the police.