14 February 2008
Today the Court of Appeal said the words that Lotfi Raissi has waited six years to hear. The strongly worded judgement said “he has been completely exonerated” of the allegations of terrorism.
The Court of Appeal allowed Lotfi Raissi’s Judicial review appeal and ordered the Home Secretary to reconsider his application for compensation for the ordeal he suffered, when he was falsely accused of training the 9/11 hijackers.
Lotfi Raissi, 33, an Algerian pilot, was the first person accused of participating in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. He was arrested at his home in Colnbrook by the Anti-terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police on 21 September 2001. Accused of being the ‘chief instructor’ to the terrorists, Mr Raissi found himself at the centre of the largest investigation in British criminal history. He was told that it was likely that he was going to be charged with conspiracy to murder and could face the death penalty in the US.
These allegations resulted in Mr Raissi being detained in a cell for 23 hours a day at Belmarsh top security prison for almost five months.
On 24 April 2002 the extradition nightmare concluded when a British judge dismissed the case and made a special point of highlighting Mr Raissi’s innocence, saying that there had been ‘no evidence’ whatsoever to support the allegation that Mr Raissi was involved in terrorism.
In June 2004 Mr Raissi wrote to the Home Secretary asking to be compensated under the Home Secretary’s ‘Ex Gratia Scheme’ for victims of miscarriages of justice. The scheme was intended to compensate those who have been detained in custody, in the UK, for the loss they have suffered when it can be shown that they are completely exonerated, or if the detention is the result of a serious default by a public authority. The then Home Secretary rejected Mr Raissi’s compensation claim and since that time Mr Raissi has sought to overturn this decision in the courts.
The Court of Appeal today delivered a unanimous and uncompromising judgment in Mr Raissi’s favour. Lord Justice Hooper delivering the judgment of the court said:
<quote/>
"...it seems to us that the extradition proceedings themselves were a device to secure the appellant’s presence in the US for the purpose of investigating 9/11 rather than for the purpose of putting him on trial for non-disclosure offences. We also consider that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence amounted to an abuse of process. The proceedings were used as a device to circumvent the rule of English law that a terrorist suspect could (at that time) be held without charge for only 7 days ... it appears that the proceedings were brought for an ulterior motive and that the opposition to bail, based on unsubstantiated assertions, was also an abuse. It does not appear to us that the CPS can be absolved from all responsibility for this state of affairs. The facts of this case, which we have set out in some detail, show how involved the police and the CPS were in the extradition proceedings.”
“There is also evidence that actions of the Metropolitan Police resulted in false statements being made to the courts contributing to the decision to refuse bail”.
“In conclusion, we consider that there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the police and the CPS were responsible for serious defaults. Of course, we do not reach firm conclusions on these points as the CPS and Police were not represented before this court and the findings of fact are for the respondent ... We are firmly of the view that there is sufficient evidence of serious default to require the respondent to reconsider his decision in the light of our ruling as to the scope of the scheme. That is a sufficient basis on which to conclude that this appeal should be allowed”.
Jules Carey of Tuckers Solicitors said “Today’s judgement should not only cause the Home Secretary to review the use of provisional extradition warrants, but it should also cause the police and the CPS to fundamentally overhaul their systems and
procedures to avoid such a serious miscarriage of justice happening again”.
Mr Raissi said ‘I wept with relief when I heard the judgment; I have always said that I believed in British Justice and I finally got it today. Surely I can expect to hear from the Home Secretary with the long awaited apology very soon’.
Mr Raissi’s Legal Team
Solicitor: Mr Jules Carey of Tuckers Solicitors
Counsel: Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC of Doughty Street Chambers, Mr Stephen Cragg of Doughty Street Chambers
CONTACT: Jules Carey - Tuckers Solicitors - 020 7388 8333