UK Double Murderer Awarded Compensation in Human Rights Case
A convicted double murderer has received £7,500 in compensation from the UK government. Taxpayers are also covering more than £234,000 in legal costs for this case. The UK High Court ruled that his treatment in prison violated his human rights.
Details of the Case and Compensation
The payout was confirmed in correspondence from David Lammy, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary. He wrote to Robert Jenrick, the Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary. The Daily Telegraph reported these details.
The case involves Fuad Awale. He received a life sentence in January 2013 for murdering two teenagers in Milton Keynes in 2011. Awale was twenty-five years old at the time. He shot Abdi Farah, nineteen, and Amin Ahmed Ismail, eighteen, in the head during a drug-related dispute. The court gave him a minimum term of thirty-eight years.
Several years later, Awale received an additional six-year sentence. He threatened to kill a prison officer during a violent incident in custody.
Close Supervision and Segregation
After a hostage-taking incident in 2013, authorities transferred Awale to a Close Supervision Centre. This is a highly restrictive unit. It isolates prisoners who pose serious risks to staff, inmates, or national security.
A court heard that Awale and another prisoner ambushed a prison officer. They threatened to kill him and made demands linked to extremist causes. These included the release of radical cleric Abu Qatada. Prison assessments later concluded that Awale held extremist beliefs.
While in the CSC system, Awale was denied association with other prisoners. Prison authorities said this restriction was necessary due to security risks. The court was told about risks from the so-called Death Before Dishonour anti-Muslim prison gang. There were also concerns about radicalisation.
At one stage, Awale requested permission to associate with one of the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby. Islamic extremists Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale murdered the British soldier in Woolwich in 2013. Authorities refused Awale's request on counter-terrorism grounds.
By March 2023, Awale had been unable to associate with any other inmates for an extended period. His legal team argued that prolonged isolation significantly damaged his mental health.
High Court Ruling and Damages
In a judgment delivered in September 2024, the High Court ruled that Awale's treatment breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article protects the right to private and family life. By the time of the ruling, Awale had been unable to associate with any other inmates since March 2023.
Mrs Justice Ellenbogan concluded that the restrictions imposed on him went beyond what was justified. She wrote that the degree of interference with the claimant's private life which has resulted from his removal from association has been of some significance and duration.
The court awarded Awale £7,500 in damages. It also ordered that £234,000 in legal costs be paid from public funds. The decision was later raised in Parliament, triggering sharp political criticism.
Political Reaction and Criticism
Responding to the decision, Robert Jenrick criticised both the outcome and the legal framework that allowed it. He told The Telegraph, It's a sick joke that taxpayers are handing this man £7,500 in compensation and footing a legal bill of over £230,000.
Jenrick said, This is a double murderer and extremist who took a prison officer hostage. This is the reality of the ECHR: it prioritises the 'rights' of terrorists to associate with other extremists over the safety of our prison officers.
Jenrick questioned whether Justice Secretary David Lammy would personally cover any compensation rather than relying on public funds. He accused Lammy of placing the European Convention on Human Rights above the interests of British people.
In posts on social media, Jenrick said the Government was cowing to one of the most despicable terrorists in Britain. He called for emergency legislation to remove certain offenders from the scope of the Convention.
Government Response and Defense
David Lammy rejected suggestions that the Government was capitulating to prisoners. He signalled unease about the implications of the ruling. In a letter sent to Jenrick on 29 December, he disclosed the previously unreported compensation figure. Lammy wrote that the £7,500 payment constitutes only a modest proportion of the overall settlement.
He explained, This payment was mandated following a court judgment against the department, after we had defended the claim in line with the established policy of contesting all litigation brought by prisoners convicted of terrorist offences — a policy that has remained consistent under successive governments.
Lammy added, This Government will not be cowed by legal threats from prisoners. The separation centre remains an essential operational tool to protect the public and other prisoners, and when dangerous radicalisers pose a risk, they will be placed in one.
Lammy said the Government remained committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. He stopped short of ruling out future changes. Commitment does not mean complacency, however, and we must keep under review whether the application of the convention is acting as a barrier to us protecting national security, he stated.
