Tuesday, January 28, 2014


It's amazing what the legal profession getup too in their never ceasing quest to grab cash off the taxpayer. Take the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, the guy who was under a terrorist watch system and then absconded from a mosque wearing a burka. Now I'm pretty sure the police want a word with him and would like to know his whereabouts.
It does appear though that his lawyers know where the terror suspect is, as he's instructed them to appeal the order which requires that his whereabouts are known...
BRITAIN’S £1billion legal aid gravy train was branded “absurd” yesterday after it emerged tax­payers are funding an appeal by a terror suspect while on the run.
Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, 27 – who is feared to have had terrorist training – wore a burka to flee a mosque and evade control orders last November.
He has been missing ever since but was still granted legal aid.
Now his lawyers are asking Appeal Court judges in London to quash High Court orders aimed at protecting the public.
The October 2012 High Court rulings upheld a decision by the Home Secretary to restrict Mohamed’s movements.
Legal aid costs taxpayers more than £1billion a year, with some barristers raking in more than £500,000 from such fees.
Kind of unbelievable that a guy who is a fugitive and technically on the run from the law still has access to legal aid. I could kind of understand it if he was appealing it whilst living under the conditions, but he isn't and if anything rather proves that he must have something to hide by going on the run.
Personally I'm of the opinion that anyone who goes abroad to get terrorist training ought not to be allowed back in the UK, however that's common sense talking, the legal system is far more absurd than that and common sense approaches need not apply. Though it appears anything unlike a common sense approach will qualify for legal aid.
Now I don't know if Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed is a danger to us, I rather suspect he is, but I've no proof, what I do know is that if he's on the run then legal aid should not apply... not now, not ever.
If he hands himself back in and goes back under the restrictions fine, we'll look at that, but no aid until he does.
Sadly it appears that's not going to happen...

9 annotations:

Bucko The Moose said...

I kind of agree with you, however control orders are a hideous piece of legislation and i don't think it's fair to say that being on the run from one must be proof of guilt.

And I would love to know what 'terrorist training' is. I'ts probably just a couple of scary words to make us frightened.

Longrider said...

Inclined to agree with Bucko. If I was held under a control order without access to the evidence against me I'd flee first and ask questions later.

Quiet_Man said...

I don't blame him for fleeing, I do have qualms about him fleeing and then using the system to finance his fight against the control order. The time to flee surely comes afterwards if you fail.

Longrider said...

Nah, I'd flee as soon as possible. I wouldn't wait around for the state to work its magic.

Quiet_Man said...

If you flee you shouldn't get legal aid.

Longrider said...

Why not? As a taxpayer, I've paid for it. Given that the state has chosen to throw the rule book out of the window, why shouldn't two play that game?

Frankly, anything that undermines control orders is a good thing - the cause of liberty sometimes means that you join some unconventional - maybe even repugnant - fellow travellers. The state is the enemy here. Any tool that undermines it is a good thing.

Quiet_Man said...

Well from a practical standpoint, turning up at court to plead your case strikes me as being counter-productive, particularly if you lose.
That said, whilst I believe the state should be opposed, the legal path strikes me as feeding off the state and empowering it by giving taxpayers cash to lawyers.

Longrider said...

In this case, giving cash to lawyers is unavoidable. What is the biggest risk to liberty - the Islamoloon or the state that exaggerates the risk of terrorism every time it goes for a power grab?

I like neither, but fear the state more. So in this case, I'm vaguely with the Islamoloon and am getting my popcorn ready.

andy5759 said...

State of play; I am slightly in favour of Longrider's position, through gritted teeth.