Posts
"A man has been charged under the Terrorism Act in relation to the failed bomb attacks in London on 21 July. Ismael Abdurahman, 23, of Newport Street, Kennington, south-east London, is the first person to be charged in connection with the incidents.So, if The Antagonist is not entirely mistaken in the interpretation of the charge of, "having information that may have helped apprehend a person involved in a terror-related offence", Ismael Abdurahman is being charged with being a grass and passing on information that helped the police in their inquiries.
He is accused of having information that may have helped apprehend a person involved in a terror-related offence.
Mr Abdurahman, who was arrested on 28 July, will appear before Bow Street Magistrates' Court on Thursday.
The allegation is understood to relate to the Shepherd's Bush bombing, with suspect Osman Hussain currently being held in Italy.
Police also said a man held in Brighton on 31 July has been released without charge."
Nice touch.
Update: Further clarification of the charge, and the specifics of the latest anti-terror laws, over at Spyblog.
2 comments:
Surely he is being charged for not being a "grass" ?
Media fact checking - Section 38 or Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ? - UPDATE: Section 38B was inserted by Section 117 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
I concur. The original comment was based on the interpretation contained in the BBC news story at the time of writing.
It will be interesting to see how it's proved that someone knew something that they later didn't tell you.
Presumably, if you can prove they knew it to be able to say they didn't tell you, you have to have the evidence available to have known the information they didn't tell you for yourself.
If that's true, isn't the charge largely redundant?
Post a Comment