Mother of IS ‘Beatle’ takes Priti to High Court
THE mother of a suspected Islamic State terrorist has launched a fresh legal challenge over Priti Patel’s decision to share evidence about him with US authorities.
Maha Elgizouli, whose son El Shafee Elsheikh is in US custody with his coaccused Alexanda Kotey, is bringing a judicial review at the High Court over the Home Secretary’s decision to provide material to the American government under a ‘mutual legal assistance (MLA)’ request.
Elsheikh and Kotey are accused of belonging to a cell of executioners in Syria – nicknamed The Beatles because of their British accents – responsible for murdering several Western captives.
The sharing of information between the UK and US was blocked until last month, when America said it would remove the threat of the death penalty hanging over the pair.
At a hearing in London yesterday, Mrs Elgizouli’s lawyers said Mrs Patel’s decision was unlawful as it is incompatible with the Data Protection Act, and asked the court to order that no material be
Threat of death penalty removed
provided to the US. Richard Hermer QC said the international transfer of the data was ‘not strictly necessary’ in circumstances where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was due to make a decision ‘imminently’ about whether the pair should be prosecuted in the UK.
He said Mrs Patel did not make sufficient inquiries as to whether a prosecution would be undertaken in the UK, and she ‘failed to address adequately or at all’ what the appropriate jurisdiction for a prosecution would be when reaching her decision.
Mr Hermer said the hearing was urgent as the US government has indicated it will transfer the pair to Iraq for trial – where they will be executed if found guilty – if it does not receive all the evidence the UK has on them by October 15.
He said the DPP has indicated he will reach his decision on whether Elsheikh and Kotey, both from London, should face trial in the UK in ‘three to four weeks’.
Mrs Elgizouli’s case is being contested by the Home Secretary, and lawyers representing her say she acted ‘rationally and lawfully’ when reaching her decision.