(Foto AP / Alberto Pezzali)
di Colin Anthony Groves
“Nel mio giudizio, questi criminali rimarrebbero, anche dopo un lungo periodo di reclusione, un rischio significativo per la società”. Queste le parole scritte dal giudice Justice Wilkie nella sentenza di condanna emessa il 9 febbraio 2012 quando Usman Khan, l’attentatore del Tower Bridge, all’epoca diciannovenne, (N.d.R. e il più giovane del gruppo) venne arrestato per il suo coinvolgimento nella pianificazione di una serie di attentati che lui e altri estremisti islamici volevano compiere nel Regno Unito.
Il giudice scrisse che al momento del rilascio questi soggetti avrebbero dovuto essere “monitorati” con condizioni rigorose
nella sentenza…
… l’autore del reato deve scontare la condanna che in caso di licenza dovrà prevedere misure precauzionali fondamentali … che includeranno, inevitabilmente, il requisito della residenza, un coprifuoco quindi restrizioni alla circolazione, restrizioni ai contatti e altre condizioni “pensate” per gestire la minaccia
È chiaro che… scriveva il giudice …
“Sono determinati a compiere azioni terroristiche violente di alto profilo
e anche se sono principianti non allenati, il loro obiettivo era quello di rendere efficaci i loro attacchi terroristici
Il piano dei terroristi nel 2010 prevedeva una serie di attacchi sincronizzati da compiere lo stesso giorno nel Regno Unito. Con queste modalità…
- Riempire una limousine con bombole di gas propano ed esplosivi e poi farla esplodere nei parcheggi sotterranei degli edifici bersaglio tra questi quello della London Stock Exchange, ossia della Borsa di Londra).
- Procurarsi una bomba radioattiva per il sabotaggio di una grande arteria ferroviaria e un tunnel sotto il Tamigi con eventuale uso di una nave cisterna per la demolizione di un edificio
41. The conspiracy in that case was of 4 years duration. It involved, at one stage, detailed written descriptions and plans for the destruction of the buildings of 4 key American financial institutions, prepared for the consideration of the Al Qaeda leadership, in the form of a professional or corporate presentation. It also involved plans for similar attacks on British targets and involved detailed proposals of several different possible methods of destruction.
One involved packing stretch limousines with propane gas cylinders and explosives and detonating them in the underground car parks beneath target buildings.
Other proposals were for a dirty, or radioactive, bomb using many thousands of an item of domestic equipment containing some radioactive material. The plan also involved the sabotage of a major rail artery, perhaps in a tunnel under the River Thames, and the hi-jacking of a petrol tanker for use to ram a building.
The plan was for all or some of those attacks to be synchronised on the same day.
The Court of Appeal, in upholding the sentences, said, amongst other things, that the potential for mass injury and loss of life was very substantial. It involved projected attacks on different buildings in urban places and radioactivity as well as explosions.
Mohammed Shahjahan 54. I have already indicated that in my judgment this offence is on the same level of seriousness as count 10. Placing it within the range of sentences in the cases to which I have already referred, in my judgment the starting point for Shahjahan as the leader of the Stoke group, which was the lead group of the three, is 22 years after a trial. In his case, whilst his previous convictions are relevant showing a disposition to commit serious crime, I do not regard them as an aggravating factor. Applying a 20 % discount for a guilty plea the determinate sentence would be 17 years 8 months. I am sentencing him to an IPP so I must fix a minimum term which is 50% of that sentence. Accordingly he will not be considered for release on licence until 8 years 10 months have elapsed less days served on remand. Usman Khan 55. In the case of Usman Khan, in my judgment he was marginally more central to the project than Nazam Hussain and marginally below Shahjahan. In addition, I must make a small reduction to reflect his youth. This results in a sentence after a trial of 20 years from which must be deducted 4 years as a discount for his plea of guilty. Thus the determinate sentence for him would be 16 years. I am imposing an IPP upon him and must fix the minimum term before which his release on licence cannot be considered. That is one half of the notional determinate sentence namely 8 years less time served on remand. Nazam Hussain 56. In the case of Nazam Hussain, in my judgment the starting point having regard to his place in the hierarchy, but without any reduction on the ground of his age, is 20 years after a trial. As with Usman Khan he is entitled to a 20% discount for his guilty plea. Thus the notional determinate sentence is 16 years. I have to fix a minimum term for him before which he may not be considered for release on licence from this sentence of IPP. That will be 8 years less time served on remand. Count 10 57. It is a fundamental principle that a Court, in sentencing an offender, following a guilty plea, may only sentence him for the conduct of which he has pleaded guilty. Count 10 particularises the offence as “preparing to produce and detonate an explosive device in the London Stock Exchange”. The Crown, in opening the case, accepted that the device was to be a pipe bomb and that it was to be exploded in a toilet in the London Stock Exchange. The Crown also accept the offenders’ bases of plea that it was not their intention to cause death or serious injury but that it was their intention to cause terror, property damage 15 and economic damage. The offenders also accept that they were reckless as to whether it would in fact cause death or serious injury. 58. The written basis of plea also accepts that it was the intention of the offenders that the plan would be carried out in the near future. There is no dispute but that, in the course of conversations and discussions relied on by the Crown, other projects of a similar nature were being considered but that only this one had reached the stage that there was an intention to commit it and work of preparation had commenced. In effect the others had been abandoned as impracticable ( the letter bombs) or had never been considered beyond being mentioned in passing. 59. Whilst it is true that no materials had yet been obtained with a view to constructing the explosive device, and that no firm date had been set, the ingredients for such a device are simple and easily obtainable and, although the device requires some dexterity to construct, it does not require any expert knowledge or training other than basic manual dexterity and a familiarisation with basic electronic principles. 60. The Crown points out that this is the first case in which a case falls for sentencing where the involvement of Al Qaeda is in the form of inspiring the offenders through the medium of Inspire magazine. These offenders have no training. Their involvement in violent terrorism, it seems, is limited to a few weeks. They are, in effect, “lone wolf” terrorists, operating alone or in small groups without direct contact with, or logistical support from, Al Qaeda centre. The information provided on line by Al Qaeda is designed so as to be used by such untrained people. This reduces the potency of the device involved but also reduces the chances of detection and increases the chances of success. The device in question is designed to be made within a few hours and with the use of little skill, using materials that can be acquired without suspicion and must, to achieve its terrorising purpose, be capable of causing death. In order to have impact, a relatively small device such as this, must be placed in a high profile target and that was what was planned here. 61. The Crown acknowledges that inevitably, with this new Al Quaeda tactic, this plan lacks the usual features of a serious terrorist plot that is, large, complex bombs, involvement in an established terrorist organisation, complex advanced planning. This is of necessity, because spontaneity and practicality are part of the new tactic. 62. I have, therefore, to attempt to place sentence for this particular offence at a point on a spectrum which runs from 30 years (Karim & Jalil) to as low as 8 (Tabbakh). I have to have regard to the fact that these offenders were only engaged in discussing and planning for terrorist activities for a relatively brief period before the security forces intervened and that they intended to plant a small explosive device, with lethal potentiality, in a toilet at the London Stock Exchange, a high profile target chosen to maximise the terrorising effect and economic impact. I also have to have regard to the fact that none of the offenders are trained and were, in fact, novices who had not devised or, 16 apparently, considered any strategy to gain entry to the London Stock Exchange with the device. 63. On the other hand I have to reflect the fact that they were determined to embark on violent terrorist action and had given serious consideration to a number of options before homing in on this one. They had deliberately chosen a high profile target and they were reckless as to the damage and/or death and or injury which might be caused. They were responding to a specific new tactic being deployed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular and were steeped in the philosophy of that organisation. 64. In my judgment, for all these reasons this offence is not as grave as the offences in Jalil and Karim. But is of a different order of seriousness to that of Tabbakh. Abdul Miah 65. In formal terms, Abdul Miah was the leader of the Cardiff group and so, in the structure chart, put on a par with Chowdhury. However, it is clear to me, as it was to the Stoke group, that he was a more serious jihadi than Chowdhury. It is clear from his contribution to discussions on 28th November, and on other occasions, that he was, by virtue of his maturity, criminal nowse and experience, and personality, the one who was setting the agenda and applying an analytical mind to the feasibility of the various projects being discussed. He also took the lead in discussing fundraising by use of frauds which particularly impressed the Stoke group. He was also advising the others on security with his own experience to the fore and was their spokesman when dealing, on 28th November, with a third party. In addition, it is clear that, by the 12th December, he had impressed the Stoke contingent with his seriousness and capabilities as a jihadi and he had already mastered the elements of making the pipe bomb. Abdul Miah is a man of previous convictions. He has a number of convictions and has served a significant custodial sentence. Some of his convictions evidence him as a person with an inclination towards violence towards people, notably his convictions in respect of noxious gases and false imprisonment. In addition he has a recent conviction for fraud which is apposite to his contributions to discussions about fundraising using fraud. Those previous convictions, in my judgment, constitute a significant aggravating element. Having regard to all of these matters, in my judgment, the appropriate starting point after a trial for this offender is one of 21 years imprisonment. From that must be deducted 4.2 years in respect of a discount for his plea of guilty. This results in a sentence of 16 years and 10 months to which will be added a 5 year extended term. Accordingly, the sentence I pass is an extended sentence of 21 years and 10 months of which the custodial element is 16 years and 10 months. Mohammed Chowdhury 66. He was 20 years old at the time of this offence of no previous conviction. He was however, he accepts, the lynchpin, bringing the groups together and arranging for the meetings in Cardiff and Newport. He was one of the four who discussed, on the 28th November, and eventually fixed on, this particular act and he was taking the lead on 19th December in explaining and going through the Inspire article with Shah Rahman. After a trial and giving him a small discount for his youth in comparison to the others a sentence of 17 years would have, in my judgment, been appropriate given his role and position within the London group and across the three groups. Giving him credit for his guilty plea of 20%. a sentence of 13 years and eight months would, in my judgment, be appropriate. However, in view of my assessment of him as dangerous, the sentence I pass upon him is an extended sentence of 18 years 8 months, of which the custodial sentence element is 13 years 8 months. Shah Rahman 67. I take into account that Shah Rahman is accepted as not being the leader of the London element of this group. Nor does his minor offence, committed during the time of this indictment, aggravate his guilt His involvement was less prominent than that of Chowdhury and it was clear that he was a follower, not a prime mover, when they were together on the 28th November, and when they were discussing recipes on the 19th December. To reflect that element, in my judgment the starting point for him is 15 years after a trial. Giving him a discount for his plea of guilty the sentence I would have passed, but for the issue of dangerousness, is one of 12 years imprisonment, to which I add an extended sentence element of 5 years. Accordingly, the sentence on him is an extended prison sentence of 17 years of which the custodial sentence element is 12 years. Gurukanth Desai 68. It is agreed that Desai is not a leader of the Cardiff group. He played a subordinate role in that group. He has previous convictions but they are long ago and trivial and so I do not regard hem as an aggravating feature. His contribution is, in my judgment, no greater than that of Shah Rahman. In his case the starting point after a trial would be a sentence of 15 years which, giving a discount for his plea of guilty, reduces to 12 years, added to which must be a 5 year extended term which results in his case in an extended sentence of 17 years of which the custodial element will be 12 years. Count 12 Omar Latif 69. The particulars of this count are that Omar Latif, with the intention of assisting others to commit an act of terrorism, engaged in conduct in preparation for an act of terrorism by travelling to and attending meetings on 7th November and 12th December. 18 70. I have already referred to his basis of plea. He was present at those meetings. He was aware that conversations concerning terrorist activity were likely to take place and that such conversations did. But he did not participate in the development of any plans of a terrorist nature including those relating to the Stock Exchange or terrorist training in Pakistan. 71. In my judgment, the gravamen of the offence committed by Latif is that on more than one occasion he travelled to and attended such meetings well knowing the nature of the conversations to take place. That is to say, their wide ranging nature, the number of possible terrorist activities which would be discussed and the intention of their participants that they would crystallise into a plan or plans to carry out at least one, if not more, terrorist acts of the type of severity being discussed. 72. Whilst his conduct with the intention of assisting others to commit an act of terrorism did not involve participation in the planning of or development of either of the plans which crystallised during those and other meetings, none the less, by his presence at those meetings, he was contributing by encouraging the others to form the intention to commit those terrorist acts and to prepare for them. As such, I accept that his culpability is not as great as theirs. But, he was a trusted member of what was, to an extent, a self consciously exclusive group who, by his plea to count 12, shared their intention that an act or acts of terrorism should be planned and prepared. I do not accept that the authorities he relies on are, save for Tabbakh, to which I have already referred, relevant to this case. The gravamen of this case is the operation of the group and his membership of it even though to a limited extent. 73. In my judgment, therefore, and in the particular context of this case, the starting point for Omar Latif is a sentence of 13 years imprisonment which, after a discount for his plea of guilty, results in a custodial term of 10 years and 4 months to which must be added a 5 year extended term giving a total extended sentence of 15 years 4 months of which the custodial term element is 10 years 4 months. Count 11 Mohibur Rahman 74. This charges Mohibur Rahman that on the 20th December 2010 he was in possession of articles: namely Inspire magazine Summer and Fall 2010, in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that their possession was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. His plea of guilty is on the basis that he did indeed have these magazines on a hard drive in his possession for several months since September 2010, though they were not accessed on that hard drive after the 16th October 2010. The Crown say that this possession by him of these articles must be seen in the context of his attendance at the Cardiff meeting on the 7th November along with the other Stoke defendants, his being referred to 19 by other defendants at the 12th December meeting, though he was not present, and his presence in discussions about a pub bomb on the 14th December with Usman Khan and Shahjahan, though no plan in respect of that discussions ever crystallised. 75. The potency of these two magazines, which were on his hard drive, is best illustrated by the direct use to which the London and Cardiff offenders put it in respect of Count 10.. The prosecution say that the context of his, albeit limited, involvement in the group makes the possession of such articles all the more significant and serious. 76. The maximum sentence for the Section 57 offence is now 15 years having been raised from 10 years in 2006. There have been a number decisions of the CACD in connection with this offence to which I have been referred, though in this area of offending cases are highly fact specific. 77. In my judgment the commission of this offence by this offender, in the context of the activities of this group and his connections with it, places his offence at a significant level of seriousness. Had there been a trial and he been convicted the appropriate sentence would have been one of 6 1/2 years imprisonment. Giving credit of 20% for his plea of guilty, that sentence is reduced to one of 5 years. 78. I do not accept the argument that he was pleading guilty to a new allegation so as to attract a greater discount for a plea of guilty. The allegation was already on the indictment in the form of count 8, a section 58 offence. He never offered to plead guilty to that offence. His late plea to the same facts recast as a section 57 offence cannot, in my judgment, constitute a plea of guilty at the first available opportunity. In his case he will be released after he has served half of that term less time served on remand and for the balance of the sentence will be at risk of recall if he were to breach he terms of his licence or were to commit a further offence. 79. Finally I have considered all the personal mitigation and references urged on me. I am afraid that in this case they are very marginal to my task and none of it has affected my sentences to any significant degree
I condannati e le condanne
MOHAMMED SHAHJAHAN: reclusione per protezione pubblica. Durata minima 8 anni 10 mesi meno 408 giorni in custodia cautelare.
USMAN KHAN: detenzione per protezione pubblica. Durata minima 8 anni meno 408 giorni in custodia cautelare.
Khan, condannato nel 2012 alla pena di 8 anni, è stato rilasciato nel dicembre 2018 “su licenza”, dopo aver scontato sei anni, anziché 8, (che in realtà erano 16, ma la pena è stata dimezzata) previsti dalla successiva sentenza della Corte di Appello del 2013
27. to a section 5 offence there is such a significant risk as triggers the dangerousness provisions. That includes Omar Latif. He attended both the meetings of the group of 9 and was regarded as a member of the Cardiff group. I am satisfied that this would not have been the case had he not shared the core intentions of the group that each geographical group, whether on its own or in combination with another, would prepare to engage in some form of violent terrorism,. As such I am satisfied that he poses the necessary risk for him to be regarded as dangerous
28. Dangerousness in their cases having been established, I have to consider whether, in each case, an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection or a determinate or an extended, sentence would be the appropriate disposal in the light of my finding that each offender poses a significant risk of serious harm to the public
NAZAM HUSSAIN: Detenzione per protezione pubblica. Durata minima 8 anni meno 408 giorni in custodia cautelare.
ABDUL MIAH: prigione prolungata di 21 anni e 10 mesi. Elemento di custodia 16 anni 10 mesi. Tempo trascorso in custodia cautelare 408 giorni.
MOHAMMED CHOWDHURY: prigione estesa di 18 anni e 8 mesi. Elemento di custodia 13 anni 8 mesi. Tempo trascorso in custodia cautelare 408 giorni.
SHAH RAHMAN: prigione prolungata di 17 anni. Elemento di custodia 12anni. Tempo trascorso in custodia cautelare 408 giorni.
GURUKANTH DESAI: prigione prolungata di 17 anni. Elemento di custodia 12 anni. Tempo trascorso in custodia cautelare 408 giorni.
OMAR LATIF: prigione prolungata di 15 anni e 4 mesi. Elemento di custodia 10 anni e 4 mesi. Tempo trascorso in custodia cautelare 408 giorni.
MOHIBUR RAHMAN: pena detentiva di 5 anni. Tempo trascorso in custodia cautelare 408 giorni.