Judge tells lonely terrorist ¿you only have yourself to blame for being single' as he rejects challenge to movement curbs

Judge tells lonely terrorist ¿you only have yourself to blame for being single' as he rejects challenge to movement curbs

• Suspected terrorist said he wants to start a family
• He was alleged to have been associates of 2006 plane bomb plotters
  
• Under strict restrictions including curfew and GPS tagging
• Judge ruled measures are appropriate

By Emma Clark

PUBLISHED: 10:44 EST, 6 July 2012 | UPDATED: 17:01 EST, 6 July 2012

The pleas of a suspected terrorist who appealed to have monitoring restrictions lifted so he could find a wife were rejected by a judge, who said he only had himself to blame.

The British citizen, known as AM and living in northern England, is alleged to have been an associate of the foiled 2006 plane bomb plotters, who planned to blow up liquid bombs on flights from London Heathrow to America.

Today AM, who was never arrested, complained to the High Court judge that the Government’s tough restrictions were preventing him from starting a family.

Suspected terrorist AM is alleged to have been associated of Tanvir Hussain, 28, pictured left, and Assad Sarwar, 29, pictured right, who were found guilty in September 2009 of conspiring to activate bombs disguised as drinks.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali,pictured right, was also found guilty of conspiring to murder thousands over the plot while Umar Islam, 29,  pictured right, was convicted of the more general conspiracy to murder charge

But the judge turned down the claim, telling him he was not convinced that his views had changed since he was allegedly ready to be a terrorist ‘martyr’.

Now aged 24, AM challenged the legality of Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision last January to impose wide-ranging restrictions on him, including a curfew and wearing a GPS tag.

The measures, referred to as ‘Tpims’, replaced previous restrictions in place for four-and-a-half years; meaning he has been subjected to the longest surveillance period of any terrorism suspect.

Mr Dan Squires, representing AM, argued the ‘devastating’ measures were ‘disproportionate’ and so restrictive that he could not contemplate marriage at an age when all his contemporaries were.

While Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at the High Court in London accepted that the restrictions were having a ‘chilling’ effect on AM’s social life, he ruled the measures - except in one instance â€" w ere both proportionate and necessary.

Referring to the impact on AM’s marriage prospects, he said they were ‘the unavoidable consequence of the situation in which his own activities have placed him’.

The judge told the court that the Home Secretary was entitled to believe AM had been involved in ‘a viable plot to commit mass murder’ in 2006 and was willing to martyr himself.

Mr Justice John Mitting today said he was not strongly convinced about AM's change of heart

The judge added: ‘But for the disruption of the transatlantic airlines plot, there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people.’

It was alleged that even after the arrest of the plotters, he remained committed to future terrorism-related activity.

As a teenager he also lied about the purpose of a trip to Oman in April 2007, as well as previous lengthy trips to Pakistan in 2004 and 2005, where he is believed to have travelled for terrorist training.

However, the judge accepted there had been tentative signs of a change in AM's outlook, and there was no open evidence to suggest terrorism-related activity since 2007.

The suspect had undertaken his first degree course in finance and business at a university in north-west England and was predicted to do well.

Restrictions related to AM's ability to meet people were relaxed to encourage him to change and lead as n ormal a life of possible.

But the judge said there had to be ‘convincing evidence of a change of heart’ before he consider any further changes to his monitoring.

He added: ‘In the light of the factors set out above, some such effect is the necessary and unavoidable consequences of measures properly taken for the purpose of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism. The measures are not disproportionate.’

The judge said deportation of AM was impermissible and prosecution unlikely, and the only viable exit strategy was to encourage and facilitate a change in his outlook.

The Tpim restrictions upheld by the judge include AM having to wear a GPS tag, submitting to daily monitoring of his movements, remaining at a specific address from midnight to 8am and not meeting two named individuals.

The suspected terrorist's claim was rejected today at the High Courts of Justice, pictured

While he is allowed his own monitored phone and computer internet connections, all visitors to his home are required to switch off their mobiles and any other communication devices.

He requires permission to engage in certain work and is excluded from ports, airports and the Manchester Olympic Park.

When he visits the home of his mother and younger sisters, they are required to switch off their mobiles and computers.

Mr Squires insisted AM had done all that could be reasonably expected of him, but to demonstrate a change of heart would require him to make self-incriminating admissions which could lead to him being prosecuted.

Disagreeing, the judge said there were numerous ways in which AM could demonstrate he had renounced his previous views without putting himself at risk of prosecution.

The judge dismissed a complaint that he was having to reduce visits because his sisters were suffering ‘annoyance and distre ss’ at not being able to use their phones.

It was ‘a small price to pay’ to see their brother, said the judge.

The only measure he ruled must be altered was one requiring AM to give two days notice of the names and addresses, if known, of people he will be meeting at a gathering or inviting to his home, before meeting them for the first time.

Despite the views of the Home Secretary and Security Service to the contrary, he was satisfied that requiring AM to give prior notification was flawed, and should be replaced with a requirement for notification after the first meeting or gathering or visit at AM's home.

• Bi-polar woman, 20, kills herself inside police car with the...
• A very sensible girl: Meet the 14-year-old who unlike her...
• Nine-month-old dies after 'babysitters injected his 17lb...
• Scientologists urge followers to 'take action' as Katie...
• Don't wipe out the masterpiece! Teacher makes 25-minute...
• Bed of shame: Geordie Shore star blamed for 'sickening'...
• The moment an American helicopter strike blasts an Afghan...
• Mystery of missing wife of Scientology leader: Woman who...
• 'I look like a monster': Mother sues unlicensed dentist...
• First Al, now Tipper! Both Gores now dating again after...
• After floods, firestorms and tornadoes now DROUGHT sweeps...
• The President and the orphan: Poignant picture captures...

Share this article: