Babar Ahmad, who has been awarded damages against the Metropolitan police.
The Metropolitan police today agreed to pay £60,000 damages to a British Muslim after a high court admission that officers had subjected him to "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack.
The court was told that Babar Ahmad, who is accused of raising funds for terrorism, had been punched, kicked and throttled during his arrest by officers from the force's territorial support group in December 2003.
The Met had repeatedly denied the claims, saying officers had used reasonable force during the arrest.
However, lawyers for the force's commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, today admitted at the high court that Ahmad had been the victim of gratuitous and sustained violence at his home in Tooting, south-west London.
"The commissioner has today admitted that his officers subjected Babar Ahmad to grave abuse tantamount to torture during his arrest," Ahmad's solicitor, Fiona Murphy, said outside the court.
During the hearing, it emerged that the Met had lost "a number of large mail sacks" containing details of other similar allegations against the officers who assaulted Ahmad.
Murphy said the few documents that had not been mislaid should have triggered a thorough investigation.
"The horrifying nature and volume of complaints against these officers should have provoked an effective response from the Metropolitan police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) long ago," she said.
"Instead, it has fallen to Babar Ahmad to bring these proceedings to achieve public recognition of the wrong that was done to him."
She said other crucial documents relating to the case were also lost.
They included all the officers' contemporaneous notebooks and the taped recording of an interview with the senior officer in the case.
Murphy added: "The papers will be referred to the director of public prosecutions for urgent consideration of criminal charges against the officers concerned and for an investigation as to whether events surrounding the mislaid mail sacks constitute evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."
During his arrest, Ahmad was punched, kicked and throttled, the court heard.
Officers stamped on the 34-year-old's feet and repeatedly punched him in the head before he was forced into the Muslim prayer position and they shouted: "Where is your God now? Pray to him."
After a sustained attack, he was forced into the back of a police van, where he was again beaten and punched before being put in a "life-threatening" neck hold and told: "You will remember this day for the rest of your life."
At one stage, one of the officers grabbed his testicles and he was also deliberately wrenched by his handcuffs – a technique known to cause intense pain.
Outside the court, Ahmad's brother-in-law, Fahad Ahmad, read out a statement on his behalf in which he said he was pleased the police had finally admitted what had happened.
"This abuse took place not in Guantánamo Bay or a secret torture chamber but in Tooting, south London," the statement said.
"The path to justice is long and difficult but, as long as you remain steadfast upon it, you will get there in the end."
Ahmad has been in detention since he was rearrested in 2004 after a request from the US government over claims he helped raise money to fund terrorist campaigns.
The court heard that no evidence had been produced against Ahmad, and he had never been charged with any offence.
He is now fighting extradition to the US in the European courts.
An IPCC investigation in 2007 ended with no action being taken against any officer.
Last edited by Ali.; 03-21-2009 at 05:35 PM.
Reason: added more recent news
Should I seek a source of law other than God, when it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (Qur'an) fully explained? And those whom We have given them the Book know that it has been sent down from the Lord with truth, so be not of those in doubt.
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
Huh. Back in 2003, someone posted about this very incident. Some people defended the actions of these particular Met officers and said Babar Ahmed was lying.
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
^oh: Are you sure? Do you have a link?
Should I seek a source of law other than God, when it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (Qur'an) fully explained? And those whom We have given them the Book know that it has been sent down from the Lord with truth, so be not of those in doubt.
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
A follow up..
--
Police officers involved in a "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack on a British Muslim man that led the Metropolitan police to pay £60,000 in damages this week have been accused of dozens of previous assaults against black or Asian men.
Babar Ahmad, 34, a terrorist suspect, was punched, kicked, stamped on and strangled during his arrest by officers from one of the Met's territorial support groups at his London home in December 2003.
After six years of denials from Scotland Yard, lawyers acting for the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, were forced to admit in the high court that Ahmad had been the victim of sustained and gratuitous violence during his arrest and agreed to pay £60,000 in damages.
But the Guardian can reveal that the Met was aware for years that the six officers involved were the subject of repeated complaints. According to documents submitted to the court, four of the officers who carried out the raid on Ahmad's home had 60 allegations of assault against them - of which at least 37 were made by black or Asian men. One of the officers had 26 separate allegations of assault against him - 17 against black or Asian men.
The Met has confirmed that since 1992 all six officers involved in the Ahmad assault had been subject to at least 77 complaints. When lawyers for Ahmad asked for details of these allegations it emerged that the police had "lost" several large mail sacks detailing at least 30 of the complaints.
Senior figures in Scotland Yard admit there are concerns about the conduct of the officers. Although the Independent Police Complaints Commission supervised an investigation carried out by the Met, none of the officers has been disciplined for the assault on Ahmad and all but one are still working in the territorial support group. Asked about the string of allegations against the officers, the Met said that all but one had been found to be unsubstantiated following inquiries.
However Fiona Murphy, the lawyer representing Ahmad, said the number of complaints should have led to a thorough inquiry.
"The horrifying nature and volume of complaints against these officers should have provoked an effective response from the Metropolitan police and the IPCC long ago," she said.
Documents submitted to the high court and seen by the Guardian list details of some of the alleged assaults carried out by the officers:
• March 2007: one officer is accused of bundling a man into the back of a police van where he was told to "get on his knees". When he replied this was not Guantánamo Bay he claims the officer grabbed him round the neck and "discharged his CS gas while continuing to hold his throat". He says he was then thrown from the van, leaving him with eye, neck and head injuries. According to the document no action was taken because the complaint was either "incapable of proof" or there was "no case to answer".
• November 2005: two of the officers were accused by a "black male" of attacking him in the back of a police van. The document states that he was subjected to "constant kicking to his head and stomach (approx 12 kicks). Head lifted off the floor by grabbing his right ear and lifting head." The attack left the man with bruising and swelling to his face but the case was not pursued, the Met said, because of "non-cooperation" by the complainant.
• October 2005: the document stated that two of the officers were involved in another assault on a "black male". It read: "In van repeatedly assaulted - kicks to the face, stamps on his head whilst handcuffed." The victim said afterwards he "felt like he might die". Vomiting and blood coming out of his ears, black swollen eye, lip busted, hands very swollen.
• June 2003: two officers accused of beating a "black male" in the back of the TSG van. "The beating continued in the van and in a search room at the station."
The allegations against the officers came to light after the high court issued a disclosure order on 13 February demanding that the Metropolitan police release all "similar fact allegations" against the officers involved in the Ahmad case.
The Met's legal team wrote to Ahmad's lawyers a few weeks later to say that "because of the sheer volume of unsubstantiated complaints" against the officers they would only be able to provide a schedule of the claims rather than the files in time for the deadline.
The schedule outlining 77 separate complaints against the officers was subsequently submitted to the court, along with a sample of complaints taken from 27 files containing some of the allegations. The police said they had lost several large mail sacks detailing at least 30 other files.
During the hearing it emerged that other crucial documents, including the officers' contemporaneous notebooks and a taped recording of an interview with the senior officer in the case, had also been mislaid.
Ahmad's lawyers say they are now calling for a judicial inquiry into the case and seeking a criminal prosecution against the officers involved. Murphy said: "The failure of the Metropolitan police and the IPCC to take effective action long ago against this group of officers can only be addressed by a full judicial inquiry and we will invite the director of public prosecutions to support the family's call for an independent judicial inquiry."
Scotland Yard said that all but one of the 77 allegations against the six TSG officers had been found to be unsubstantiated, because the complainant failed to assist them any further, the complaint was withdrawn or informally resolved, or investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
The Met said the Directorate of Professional Standards was investigating the missing mail sacks containing 30 complaint dockets. Sources played down the significance of the allegations against the officers, indicating that all TSG officers are often the subject of complaints because of the nature of their job as frontline officers who police public disorder as well as having an anti-terrorism role.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has now been asked to investigate why two of the officers refused orders to give evidence in the Ahmad case at the high court.
The Metropolitan Police Authority said: "The MPA will not tolerate racism or unnecessary force and we are very concerned about the impact this case will have on community police relations in London."
Ahmad was arrested at his home in south-west London. The court heard how officers stamped on his feet and repeatedly punched him in the head before he was forced into the Muslim prayer position when they shouted: "Where is your God now? Pray to him."
After a sustained attack, he was forced into the back of a police van, where he was again beaten and punched before being put in a "life-threatening" neck hold and told: "You will remember this day for the rest of your life."
At one stage, one of the officers grabbed his testicles and he was also deliberately wrenched by his handcuffs - a technique known to cause intense pain.
He has been in detention since he was rearrested in 2004 after a request from the US government over claims that he helped raise money to fund terrorist campaigns. The court heard that no evidence had been produced against Ahmad, and that he had never been charged with any offence.
Should I seek a source of law other than God, when it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (Qur'an) fully explained? And those whom We have given them the Book know that it has been sent down from the Lord with truth, so be not of those in doubt.
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali.
^oh: Are you sure? Do you have a link?
Even if I could find it amongst the bazillion or so threads in this section... I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hindsight is 20/20. No need for me to (continue to) be a jerk about it.
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Huh. Back in 2003, someone posted about this very incident. Some people defended the actions of these particular Met officers and said Babar Ahmed was lying.
Well, it has certainly taken a long time for this case to be settled. I wonder whether this is just an isolated incident or whether it provides further evidence of institutional 'racism' (as it were) in the Metropolitan police force.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
Comment by Victoria Brittain:
Stunning victory for Babar Ahmad
The Metropolitan police's agreement to award damages of £60,000 is an admission of its shocking abuse.
The award of £60,000 for damages to Babar Ahmad in his civil case against the Metropolitan police for injuries inflicted on him during a pre-dawn arrest by helmeted officers at his home in December 2003 is a stunning victory for Ahmad, and an admission by the police of shocking abuse and Islamophobia by its officers. Ahmad was never charged after his arrest.
Six years ago, Ahmad sought an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into his mistreatment, but it concluded there was only sufficient evidence to bring disciplinary proceedings against one officer, PC James Bowen, for his one act of an "initial charge" at Ahmad. The Crown Prosecution Service concluded the assault was "not provable to criminal standard".
After this morning's judgment, Ahmad's wife said: "At last Babar has been exonerated. This whole case was always about the police lies, and their attempt to say that Babar had lied. Now everyone knows that he never did. The money is not the point and never was."
The case was against five officers of the Territorial Support Group from Paddington Green police station, one of whom was identified only as X. It had been expected to last all week. But the medical evidence that was to be brought of the litany of injuries sustained by Ahmad, the mysterious loss by the police of sacks of documents of records of the arrest, the refusal by some officers to attend the court, citing "fear", and the chance discovery by Ahmad's legal team that X was facing another case of assault, meant that Sir Paul Stevenson preferred to pay than see the case continue. But the police still refused to apologise.
On Monday, the High Court heard that Ahmad was subjected to "serious gratuitous prolonged unjustified violence" and "religious abuse" after his arrest. The court was told that after beating him in the bedroom, stamping on his feet, and swearing at him, the officers forced him to his knees and mocked him, "Where is your god now?"
Phillippa Kaufmann, counsel for Ahmad, told the High Court that he had been dragged by handcuffs, causing acute pain, and while in the back of a police vehicle subjected to neck holds, which made him feel like he was dying.
As his counsel said, his treatment at the hands of the officers was intended to humiliate and debase him and make him fear for his life. Kaufmann said the officers engaged in "extreme, sadistic and dangerous acts of violence against an individual who was completely restrained and vulnerable". This was in fact an "extreme abuse of power which was in no sense justified nor was it excusable".
Within the Muslim community this settlement will be greeted with great satisfaction, particularly by those who have experienced similar treatment.
Ahmad was again arrested on August 5 2004 on an extradition warrant from the United States, and has been in Long Lartin prison fighting extradition ever since. His case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights.
Re: Metropolitan police pay Muslim man £60,000 damages over 'serious attack'.
Good to hear. Thanks for that, Osman.
I hope this never happens again.. though I suspect it happens a lot, just concealed from public eyes..
Should I seek a source of law other than God, when it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (Qur'an) fully explained? And those whom We have given them the Book know that it has been sent down from the Lord with truth, so be not of those in doubt.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
oh: Are you sure? Do you have a link?
^
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks