Mother of suspected Isis terrorist wins court fight
THE Supreme Court has ruled that the UK Government’s decision to share evidence with US authorities about two Islamic State terrorists without seeking assurances they will not face the death penalty was unlawful.
El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey are accused of belonging to a brutal four-man cell of IS executioners in Syria – nicknamed The Beatles because of their British accents – responsible for killing a number of high-profile Western captives.
The pair were captured in January 2018, sparking an international row over whether they should be returned to the UK for trial or face justice in another jurisdiction.
Elsheikh’s mother, Maha Elgizouli, brought a challenge to the decision of then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid to share evidence with American authorities without seeking assurances the men would not be executed if convicted in the US.
Her case was dismissed by the High Court in January last year, but yesterday seven Supreme Court justices unanimously allowed her appeal against that decision.
Giving the lead ruling over video conferencing software, Lord Kerr said Mr Javid’s decision to share evidence with the US breached data protection laws.
Announcing the court’s decision, the judge said the transfer of someone’s personal data to a “third country” – such as the US – was “only lawful if it is based on what is called an adequacy decision or on there being appropriate safeguards or on special circumstances”.
He added: “The information in question was transferred without being based on sufficient safeguards and without the requisite assessment of whether special circumstances justifying the transfer existed. The decision was based on political expediency, rather than strict necessity under the statutory criteria.
“It was consequently unlawful under the (Data Protection Act).”
Lord Kerr addressed the fact the court’s ruling was announced over videolink for the first time because of the Covid-19 outbreak.
He said: “It is a fortunate circumstance that it is possible to function as a court using modern technology.”
At a hearing in July last year, her barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, said Mrs Elgizouli “recognises the enormity of the crimes alleged against her son, Shafee Elsheikh, and against his alleged accomplice Alexanda Kotey”.
He told the court that the Crown Prosecution Service previously concluded there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute the pair in the UK.
However, he said there was a “historical decision in February 2016” that there was enough evidence to charge Kotey with five offences of murder and eight of hostage taking, and to prosecute Elsheikh for membership of a terrorist organisation.
Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, argued that Mr Javid’s decision was made “after the most careful consideration”.