Former Guantánamo detainee Jamal al-Harith was able to travel to Iraq because he was not considered a major security threat

The British former Guantánamo detainee thought to have carried out a suicide bombing for Islamic State in Iraq this week was not being monitored by the British security services when he left the UK in 2014.



Jamal al-Harith was not a subject of active investigation at the time, the Guardian understands, because he was not considered to be a major security threat, so there would not have been a reason to have stopped him travelling abroad to join the terror group.

The admission came as the intelligence agencies and Conservative and Labour politicians came under criticism for allowing Harith – born Ronald Fiddler – to leave the UK and for the decision to pay him a six-figure sum in compensation after he was released from Guantánamo in 2004.

Downing Street refused to answer questions about the 50-year-old Muslim convert from Manchester on Wednesday, with Theresa May’s spokesman insisting that it remains unclear whether Harith was in fact the suicide bomber. “I am yet to see any element of fact produced in this case,” he said.

The Guardian view on terror suspects: protecting their rights is in our interests | Editorial Read more

May’s spokesman declined to comment on the surveillance that Harith was placed under while she was home secretary, as well as whether compensation paid to him by the Conservative-led government while she was in the same job could have been used to fund terrorism.

Pressed repeatedly, the spokesman added: “The simple fact is, it’s been reported as a matter of fact about this individual, but there is not independent confirmation of the identity of this man who’s believed to be dead in Mosul ... There is no indication at all. Obviously, the situation in Syria means that we don’t have the capacity to verify anything.”

Claims by Isis that Harith, whom it gave the nom de guerre Abu Zakariya al-Britani, was the man who carried out the suicide bombing on Monday have not been independently verified. A video shot from long range did not show definitively who was in the vehicle when it was driven into a military compound near Mosulbefore exploding and causing multiple injuries.



Harith was taken to Guantánamo in 2001 after being discovered in a Taliban prison in Pakistan. He was held there without charge until his release 2004, which followed lobbying from the government to release some UK nationals held in the US-run prison camp.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jamal al-Harith is surrounded by journalists in a photo taken inside Kandahar jail in Afghanistan in December 2001. Photograph: Banaras Khan/AFP/Getty Images

Some Conservative backbenchers suggested that the government had questions to answer over surveillance of Harith, including over whether the Home Office, of which May was in charge at the time, should have done more to stop him travelling.

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee, said he would hope to see a review of how Harith had been monitored and how he had been able to reach Iraq.

“There needs to be a proper review of what monitoring was done, what signs were missed and, when he chose to travel to Syria, why was that journey not interdicted at some point? Is it our fault through inadequate exit controls or Turkey’s? It’s about operational oversight.”

Downing Street’s reluctance to confirm that Harith was the suicide bomber reflects the general wariness of the security services in making categorical assessments. While the authorities are likely to have assumed it was him, they cannot offer 100% assurance unless there is evidence, such as DNA from the scene. That can be difficult for the Iraqi army to acquire, given that Mosul is a conflict zone.

The fact that Harith had returned from Guantánamo means the security services would have taken an interest in him. But the intelligence agencies repeatedly stress that they have only limited resources and 24-hour surveillance, which requires anything from 20 to 40 watchers, tends to be restricted to only those believed to pose a real threat.

There have been 12 terrorist plots uncovered in the UK in the last three years and resources tend to be devoted to cases such as those rather than individuals just classified as being of interest.

A string of former Labour ministers also defended their part in the decision to press for the release of Harith. The former Labour home secretary David Blunkett had earlier said the government must answer questions about how long individuals released from Guantánamo Bay continued to be monitored.

“I am not aware as to the length of time such monitoring continued after I left the Home Office at the end of 2004,” Blunkett said. “It is clear, however, that in 2010 under the new coalition government, when the compensation awards were actually given, continuing contact and awareness of these individuals must have been present. What happened between then and 2014 is of course a matter of speculation that can only be answered by the present government.”

After Guantánamo: what became of the Britons freed from the US camp? Read more

Blunkett insisted the Labour government had “acted responsibly” over Harith’s release. His former cabinet colleague Jack Straw admitted there was “never a guarantee” that Britons released from Guantánamo would not be involved in terrorism. But he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme that “you can’t just keep people locked up forever on the basis of suspicion”.

Tony Blair has denied that a Labour government had paid compensation to with a strongly worded statement in which he accused the Daily Mail of hypocritical coverage of the jihadi’s death.

The former prime minister said compensation to Harith was paid out under the Conservative-led coalition government in 2010 and criticised the tabloid for blaming him and Labour instead. “He was not paid compensation by my government,” Blair said. “The compensation was agreed in 2010 by the Conservative government.”

On Wednesday the Daily Mail’s front page story on the death of Harith singled out Blair’s government for “intense lobbying” for his release.

Blair hit out at the Daily Mail’s “utter hypocrisy”, pointing out that the newspaper led a media campaign for Harith’s release from Guantánamo Bay. “It is correct that Jamal al-Harith was released from Guantánamo Bay at the request of the British government in 2004,” he said. “This followed a massive media and parliamentary campaign, led by the Daily Mail, the very paper that is now supposedly so outraged at his release, and strongly supported by the then Conservative opposition.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The front page of the MailOnline, which was criticised as being ‘utter hypocrisy’ by Tony Blair. Photograph: Daily Mail

A spokesman for the Daily Mail rejected Blair’s accusations: “However, to accuse the Daily Mail newspaper of hypocrisy in this case is monstrous. The Mail has been utterly consistent in its condemnation of Guantánamo Bay, arguing that extraordinary rendition, torture and locking up people and holding them for years on end without trial was morally wrong. All of this happened under Tony Blair’s regime – as did the release of Ronald Fiddler, with the then home secretary’s assurance that the detainee’s return would not ‘be a threat to the security of the British people’.”

Press reports had suggested that Harith was paid £1m in compensation by the UK government after his mistreatment in the US camp but his family denied that on Wednesday. In a statement released on their behalf, they said they believed that figure was for a “group settlement including costs for four innocent people including Jamal”.



They said they had not received official confirmation of Harith’s death but had been “desperately worried about his fate” since last hearing from him in 2014. Before 2001, Harith was a “peaceful and gentle person” who would not have become involved with Islamic State, the statement read.

“Whatever he may or may not have done since then … he was utterly changed” by his experiences in Guantánamo. “While sleeping he would cry out, ‘Don’t hurt me.’”