Opportunity missed to return Streatham terrorist to jail days before knife rampage, inquest jury finds
A terrorist attack on a busy shopping street could have been prevented if the probation service had recalled him to prison when he was seen buying items to make a fake suicide vest, a jury has found.
Sudesh Amman, 20, from Queensbury, north London, was shot dead by undercover surveillance officers after he went on a knife rampage in Streatham, South London in February last year.
The inquest jury at the Royal Courts of Justice found that the killing was lawful but was asked to reach conclusions on whether the probation service or police could have stopped the attack taking place.
The jury were shown images of Amman taken after his release from jail. Pic: Met Police
Amman had been released from Belmarsh jail ten days earlier after serving half of a 40-month sentence for obtaining and distributing material for terrorist purposes.
On 2 February last year he grabbed a carving knife from a shop and stabbed two passers-by, one of them seriously, during a rampage up Streatham High Road.
He was shot dead by armed surveillance officers in front of Boots, 62 seconds after the attack began, when he turned and ran at the officers.
The jury agreed the probation service “missed an opportunity” which may have prevented the attack and the death of Amman, in not deciding to recall him to prison after he bought items that might be used in creating a fake suicide belt.
They were told that Amman could have been recalled if probation officers were satisfied that his behaviour “indicated an increased or unmanageable risk of serious harm to the public” or that there was an imminent risk of further offences being committed.
They were also asked whether the police investigation team ought to have asked to have Amman’s probation hostel room searched following the purchase of four bottles if Irn-Bru, a roll of Bacofoil and brown parcel tape, that was used to construct the fake vest, but decided it was not.
Sudesh Amman before the attack. Pic: Gardham/Met Police
They said it was a “novel step” and one which risked compromising the surveillance operation.
A last question asked whether Amman should have been stopped and searched by armed police officers on February 2 between him leaving the hostel at 1.22pm and running out of the Low Price Store with a knife at 1.57pm.
But the jury said no further intelligence or suspicious were raised after Amman bought the suspicious items.
They said that none of the experienced surveillance officers “considered or suggested the possibility” that an empty JD Sports plastic bag was being used to conceal a possible suicide belt.
They were directed to return a finding of lawful killing of Amman after the coroner, Mr Justice Hilliard, told them he had decided, with no objection from any interested person, that it was the only conclusion they could “safely return.”
Footage shows an undercover officer firing his gun in Streatham High Street. Pic: Met Police
Explaining his decision, the coroner added: “Each of the officers who shot Sudesh Amman at every stage honestly believed that it was necessary to use force in defence of himself and others, and the amount of force used at each stage was no more than reasonably necessary in the circumstances.”
The coroner thanked the jury for the care and time they had taken in coming to their conclusions and added that the two people who were stabbed in the attack were “in all our thoughts.”
The coroner added: “Mr Amman was prepared to risk his life in order to try and murder other people.
“In stark contrast, members of the Metropolitan Police surveillance unit were prepared to put themselves in harm’s way to keep all of us safe, especially the team on February 2.
“They are owed a considerable debt of gratitude for what they did which I gladly acknowledge.”
Downing Street has indicated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived on British soil following an international arrest warrant being issued for him.
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
The UK government was reluctant to commit to saying Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to the UK but Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said the government would “fulfil its legal obligations” in relation to the arrest warrant.
“The UK will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law, and indeed international law,” he said.
He added the domestic process linked to ICC arrest warrants has never been used to date by the UK because the country has never been visited by anyone wanted by the international court.
Earlier on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it “wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment” on the processes involved as the ICC is independent, although the UK is a member.
She told Sky News: “We’ve always respected the importance of international law, but in the majority of the cases that they pursue, they don’t become part of the British legal process.
“What I can say is that obviously, the UK government’s position remains that we believe the focus should be on getting a ceasefire in Gaza.”
However, Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, told Sky News: “If Netanyahu comes to Britain, our obligation under the Rome Convention would be to arrest him under the warrant from the ICC.
“Not really a question of should, we are required to because we are members of the ICC.”
After winning July’s election the government said it would not oppose the ICC’s right to issue the warrants.
Netanyahu and Gallant (right) have arrest warrants against them. File pic: Reuters
Ireland, France and Italy have signalled they would arrest Netanyahu if he came to their countries.
Asked if police would arrest the Israeli leader in Ireland, Irish Taoiseach Simon Harris said: “Yes, absolutely. We support international courts and we apply their warrants.”
Germany said it would make a decision if Netanyahu came to Germany but said it is one of the “biggest supporters of the ICC”, partly as a result of history.
A German government spokesman said: “At the same time, it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and a great responsibility with Israel.”
An ICC arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri, the mastermind behind the 7 October attacks in Israel, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israel claims Al Masri was killed earlier this year but the ICC said that has not been confirmed, so it was issuing the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “antisemitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
Read more:
What satellite images tell us about North Gaza
Hamas ready for Gaza ceasefire ‘immediately’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why have arrest warrants been issued?
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday he would invite Netanyahu to visit Hungary and he would guarantee the arrest warrant would “not be observed”.
The ICC originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and on Thursday announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
It is the first time a sitting leader of a major Western ally has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global court of justice.
Hundreds of people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue legal action against MI5, judges have ruled.
More than 300 people, including survivors and those bereaved by the 2017 attack at an Ariana Grande concert, brought a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), claiming failures to take “appropriate measures” to prevent the incident infringed their human rights.
In a ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey said the cases could not proceed as they were brought too late.
Lord Justice Singh said: “We are particularly conscious of the importance of the rights concerned… We are also conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.
“Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.
“The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable.
“Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed.”
File pic: AP
Lord Justice Singh acknowledged that while the tribunal “readily understand” why the legal claims were not filed until after the final report from the inquiry into the attack, “real expedition” was needed at that point.
The judge added: “We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been.”
Had the claims gone ahead, the judge noted the security services would have needed to “divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities” – which includes preventing future attacks.
Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated a rucksack bomb at the end of an Ariana Grande show at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi
Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter, three of the law firms representing complainants affected, said the ruling was “extremely disappointing” for their clients.
In a statement, the firms said: “Ever since the attack in May 2017, our clients have had to endure continued delays but have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved.
“It took almost six years for the failings of MI5 to be revealed, confirmed when the inquiry chair published his volume three findings in March 2023, in which he said MI5 had missed a ‘significant opportunity’ to prevent the attack.
“This report concluded that within this six-year period, the security service corporate witnesses X and J gave evidence on oath that had presented an inaccurate picture, and the same inaccurate picture had been presented to Lord Anderson when he compiled his report in December 2017.”
Read more from Sky News:
‘Blood on their hands’: Could MI5 have prevented the Manchester attack?
Manchester attack survivors awarded £45k after suing man who claims it was a hoax
Police officers who went for kebab on night of terror attack given final warnings
The law firms said following these findings, their clients believed the IPT would “provide the route to the formal vindication of their human rights”.
The firms added: “We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing. Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 – six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5.
“This judgment certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5. There were failings by MI5 and multiple other parties leading up to and on the actual evening of 22 May 2017 and collectively we continue to support our clients in their fight for full accountability and justice.”
Police with members of the public after the attack. Pic: PA
The inquiry into the bombing found it might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months before the attack.
The agency’s director-general, Ken McCallum, expressed deep regret that such intelligence was not obtained.
Two pieces of information about Abedi were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.
But inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said, having heard from MI5 witnesses at the hearings, he considered that did not present an “accurate picture”.
Lawyers for those affected previously said the inquiry found there was a “real possibility” that one of the pieces of intelligence could have obtained information which may have led to actions preventing the attack.
And at the hearing earlier this month, Pete Weatherby KC, for those affected, described the IPT claims as “the next step” in vindication for his clients after the inquiry’s findings.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway