The Home Secretary has blamed a previous Labour government after Yvette Cooper asked how the London Bridge attacker could have been released when he was deemed so dangerous.

Priti Patel took to Twitter to respond to Labour’s Ms Cooper, who had posted a series of tweets asking questions about Usman Khan’s release, and the minister also then tweeted Jeremy Corbyn about the issue.

Ms Patel had earlier visited the scene of the attack with the Prime Minister, which she also posted about on social media.

Because legislation brought in by your government in 2008 meant that dangerous terrorists had to automatically be released after half of their jail term. Conservatives changed the law in 2012 to end your automatic release policy but Khan was convicted before this. https://t.co/8fCm880MSK — Priti Patel (@patel4witham) November 30, 2019

Mr Corbyn said questions need to be urgently answered regarding the roles of the Parole Board and probation services.

Ms Patel posted a link to a news article and tweeted: “The Parole Board could not be involved in this decision @jeremycorbyn.

“Your party changed the law in 2008 so that Khan was automatically released irrespective of the danger he posed. Very concerning that you want to be PM but don’t understand this.”

The Parole Board said it had no involvement in his release and that Khan “appears to have been released automatically on licence” halfway through his sentence.

Advertising

In the first of a series of tweets, Ms Cooper said: “Usman Khan was sentenced for serious terror offence in Feb 2012. Thought to be so dangerous by judge he was given IPP sentence to prevent release if still serious threat.

“Instead he was released 6 yrs later without Parole Board assessment. How cd this be allowed to happen?”

Ms Patel responded: “Because legislation brought in by your government in 2008 meant that dangerous terrorists had to automatically be released after half of their jail term.

“Conservatives changed the law in 2012 to end your automatic release policy but Khan was convicted before this.”

Advertising

The Prime Minister @10DowningStreet & I met today with police at the heart of London’s response to yesterday’s attack. The police have my full backing & I want to thank them again for their dedication. My thoughts are with all those affected by this horrific attack. #LondonBridge pic.twitter.com/KH4SrZAHmX — Priti Patel (@patel4witham) November 30, 2019

Ms Cooper said there will need to be a “serious and full” investigation into how the incident happened given that the attacker was a convicted terrorist.

She told BBC News: “I think there are also some immediate questions that will need to be asked, particularly because we know there may be other people in the same situation as this attacker and it’s really important that the Government is taking every action to keep people safe.”

Ms Cooper said: “There are de-radicalisation programmes but there is a question about whether this attacker was a part of them, what the extent of them was, what the resourcing is behind them.”

She said investment in de-radicalisation in prison is “crucial”, adding that another key question is about what the level of risk assessment and safety assessment is for anybody coming to the end of their sentence.

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPPs) were introduced in 2005 and given to violent or sexual offenders who posed a risk to society.

They would not include a fixed term of imprisonment but instead would give an offender a minimum period to serve before they could be released.

A prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence would stay in prison until it was found they were safe to be released, meaning they could remain locked up for decades if they were still thought to be dangerous.

They were abolished in December 2012, but not for existing prisoners.

Khan and two others were originally given indeterminate sentences with a minimum term of eight years behind bars instead of a fixed term.

Khan, along with Nazam Hussain and Mohammed Shahjahan, appealed against their sentences and had the indeterminate sentences dropped by the Court of Appeal in 2013.

Mr Justice Leveson found the original decision had “wrongly characterised” the three men as more dangerous than the other defendants.