Jailed Al-Qaeda Terrorist Receives $1M in Taxpayers Money to Appeal Conviction
British extremist receives legal aid after preparing to commit mass murder
A jailed Al-Qaeda terrorist in the UK has received over $1 Million (nearly £800,000) in taxpayers money to pay for legal aid to appeal his conviction, according to reports.
Rangzieb Ahmed, 43, was jailed for life after he was caught preparing to commit mass murder and directing terrorism in the UK.
Ahmed was jailed at Manchester Crown Court in 2008 with a minimum term of ten years after he was found guilty of being a member of terrorist Al Qaeda along with his associate.
The man became the very first person in the UK convicted of leading a terrorist organization following his arrest in Pakistan.
But a freedom of information request revealed that Ahmed received over £1,00,00,00 in legal fees to help him appeal his conviction, according to The Sun on Sunday.
Included in the fees are as follows:
$763,667 for a barrister and lawyers
$157,860 for an appeal against a failed conviction
$78,268 for a civil action
British MP David Davies has described the payments as an 'outrage.'
Ahmed, who is believed to have links to the 7/7 London bombings which left Fifty-two people dead, and more than 700 injured, will get his parole hearing next month.
The terrorist lost his appeal against conviction in 2011 after he claimed that police and the security service permitted him to leave the UK Pakistan while under surveillance, knowing he would be harmed.
Ahmed received a life jail sentence with a minimum term of ten years after Manchester Crown Court jury found him guilty of being a member of Al Qaeda with his associate, Manchester taxi driver Habib Ahmed.
The extremist accused British authorities and offices of ‘passive rendition’ which meant he was ‘viciously tortured.’
His lawyers claimed his subsequent conviction should be ruled unlawful due to being ‘corrupted’ by torture evidence obtained with Britain’s complicity.
Ahmed’s QC, Joel Bennathan, said during the appeal that the trial judge should have ended the proceedings against his client as an ‘abuse of process.’
But the appeals were rejected by three Appeal Court judges, Lord Justice Hughes, Mr. Justice Owen, and Mrs. Justice Thirlwall.
The judges said it was right for the trial to go ahead.
They said that there was 'no proof' of the alleged torture, and even if there was it would not affect the trail.
The trial judge investigated the claims before revealing that Ahmed had not been able to prove he had been tortured.
Any so-called torture that may have taken place did not occur before Ahmed was seen by British security officers, according to the judge.