Johnson warned of Isil death penalty risk
Former foreign secretary said jihadi ‘Beatles’ deal could undermine Britain’s opposition to execution
BORIS JOHNSON warned that helping the US prosecute two alleged jihadist killers would prevent Britain demanding others are spared the death penalty in future, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
The former foreign secretary expressed reservations as he and Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, discussed waiving death penalty assurances in order to help US prosecutors bring to trial the two members of the notorious Isil “Beatles” cell.
He ultimately agreed that “the benefits outweigh the risks” of the two men potentially escaping justice and being free to return to the UK, but his concerns – detailed in a “sensitive” briefing document circulated to key civil servants and ministers – are likely to be jumped on by critics who believe the change of policy undermines the UK’S opposition to the death penalty in the long run.
This newspaper disclosed yesterday that the UK has agreed to hand over intelligence on Alexanda Kotey and Shafee El-sheikh to US prosecutors, but dropped demands they avoid execution.
Both men are suspected of being part of the “Beatles” cell behind the beheadings of two British aid workers and three Americans, plus scores of others.
There was a fierce backlash from human rights groups and leading MPS yesterday who claimed the decision amounted to abandoning Britain’s principled opposition to the death penalty. However The Telegraph understands that death penalty assurances had been waived in a previous case under David Cameron’s coalition government, as allies of Mr Javid insisted he had not set a precedent.
Downing Street initially declined to endorse the letter sent by Mr Javid informing Jeff Sessions, the US attorney general, that no death penalty assurances would be sought regarding the jihadists.
However, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman later said Theresa May supports how ministers had handled the case, adding: “The ultimate aim for all of us is to ensure these men are brought to justice.”
Mr Javid’s letter to Mr Sessions, dated June 22, said that Britain would approve America’s request for “mutual legal assistance” for Kotey and Elsheikh without seeking any “assurances” on the death penalty.
An internal UK Government briefing document dated on the same day and seen by this newspaper reveals that Mr Johnson – one of two ministers who approved the policy – had concerns. “The Foreign Secretary considers that not seeking assurances … could damage our ability to secure adequate assurances from the US and other countries in future, but agrees that the benefits outweigh the risks in this instance,” the briefing note says.
A government source did not deny Mr Johnson had concerns. Explaining Mr Johnson’s ultimate support of the policy, the source said: “Should we prevent [the men] from being tried and brought to justice because of the risk of the death penalty?”
More than 8,000 requests for mutual legal assistance are made to the
Government every year. Diplomats are told to demand death penalty assurances as a rule, but can seek exceptions from ministers.
A senior Home Office source played down fears that the UK’S ability to secure death penalty assurances would be weakened in the future, insisting each is taken on a “case by case” basis.
Family members of victims, terrorism law experts and leading MPS from across the political spectrum expressed concern yesterday that the UK’S principled objection to the death penalty was being undermined.
Diane Foley, whose son James, a US journalist, was among the group’s victims, said yesterday that she was against the two jihadists facing the death penalty.
She told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme: “I am very against that. I think that would just make them martyrs in their twisted ideology. I would like them held accountable by being sent to prison for the rest of their lives.”
Lord Carlile, the former reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “It is a dramatic change of policy by a minister, secretly, without any discussion in Parliament.
“It flies in the face of what has been said repeatedly and recently by the
‘It is a dramatic change of policy. It flies in the face of what has been said by the Home Office’
Home Office – including when Mrs May was home secretary.”
He added: “Britain has always said that it will pass information and intelligence, in appropriate cases, provided there is no death penalty.
“That is a decades-old policy and it is not for the Home Secretary to change that policy.”
Ben Wallace, the security minister, who was called into the House of Commons to justify the policy yesterday, confirmed that the UK would not be seeking death penalty assurances.
He confirmed both men had been stripped of their UK citizenship and also insisted the Government would not be changing its decision.
Mr Wallace yesterday defended the policy by saying: “We risk being seen as hypocrites if we say that we will never make an exception for assurances, while being prepared to use lethal force on the battlefield to kill people without due process. That is the balance that we always have to strike. It is not easy, but we do it to try to keep people safe.”
New details were emerging last night of the pressure the Government had been put under from US administration officials and politicians to back down over its opposition to the death penalty. One Republican senator personally challenged Mrs May over her stance on Guantánamo earlier this year, while the White House was frustrated with Britain’s attempt to “dictate terms” of a US prosecution.