One of the men convicted of helping the failed 21/7 London bombers has been awarded €16,000 (£13,600) in legal costs by the European court of human rights on the grounds that his right to a fair trial was violated.

The decision by the upper appeal chamber of the Strasbourg court is a surprise following a series of unsuccessful legal challenges by those behind the failed attacks on the UK capital’s underground system on 21 July 2005.

By a majority of 15 votes to two, the court’s judges dismissed claims by three of the would-be bombers – Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar – that they had not received legal assistance or a fair trial.

Ismail Abdurahman. Photograph: Metropolitan Police/PA

But in the case of one of their accomplices, Ismail Abdurahman, the judges voted by 11 to six that his convention rights had been breached because of delays in allowing him access to a lawyer.



Abdurahman was initially interviewed as a witness before being charged with assisting one of the bombers and of failing to disclose information about the attack. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, later reduced to eight years on appeal.

In its judgment, the European court of human rights’ grand chamber said: “The court was not convinced that the [UK] government had demonstrated compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and failing to inform him of his right to remain silent.

“It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution Mr Abdurahman at the point at which he had started to incriminate himself. Indeed, the decision had been contrary to the applicable code of practice. The consequence was that Mr Abdurahman had been misled as to his procedural rights.” His claim for damages was dismissed but he was granted €16,000 towards his legal costs.



The ECHR judges recognised, however, that officers at the time had been working to prevent any further suicide bomb attacks. “The police had been operating under enormous pressure and their overriding priority had, quite properly, been investigations and interviews to obtain as a matter of urgency information on any further planned attacks and the identities of those potentially involved in the plot,” the Strasbourg court said.

“The possibility of restricting access to legal advice in such exceptional circumstances recognised the unique and highly difficult conditions with which the police in London had been faced in July 2005 … the decision to limit the right to legal advice had been taken by a police officer based on the specific facts of each three applicants’ cases and the decisions had been recorded. The court was therefore satisfied that there were compelling reasons for the temporary restrictions of the first three applicants’ right to legal advice.”

The proceedings in relation to the first three defendants – Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar – had been fair, the judges ruled.

