Twisted bomb plotter who is UK’s only terrorist on restraining order is using YOUR cash to get round it
Islamic extremist who planned attack on London has used thousands of pounds of taxpayer-funded legal aid to win case
THE only UK terrorist on an anti-terror order has used tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer-funded legal aid to win more freedom.
The bomb plotter was jailed for three years over a plan to attack London after MI5 bugged him.
When the 28-year-old was released last year he was put on a T-Pim — Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures — until next April.
But incredibly, after moaning about the terms of the order, he was handed legal aid to challenge them.
And even more astonishingly, the Islamist fanatic, who is of Algerian descent, won his High Court bid to get more pocket money off the State and have his nightly curfew reduced.
We can today reveal the details of his case — argued in court earlier this month — after obtaining a copy of the judgment released on Friday.
The terrorist — who went to Syria before the bomb plot to meet fellow extremists — complained about being moved away from London.
He was also unhappy that he was only being given £50 per week in cash by the State, and that he had to stay at home from 9pm to 7am.
The High Court ruling revealed that the would-be bomber, known as EB, has now had his “pocket money” increased to £75 per week.
Mr Justice Mitting also said in his judgment that the night-time curfew could be relaxed to 11pm to 7am.
The legal challenge and decision to soften the order has caused outrage.
The idea that he gets legal aid is repulsive
Colonel Richard Kemp — former Commander of British forces in Afghanistan and a counter-terrorism consultant — said yesterday: “The idea that our taxes should be used on legal aid to pay for this guy to challenge restrictions placed on him by the government is repulsive.
“This man should not have been released — even on licence — and should still be behind bars.”
EB produced a psychiatrist’s report to support his attempt to move back to London to be closer to his wife — who he only married after his release from jail — and his mum.
It stated that he was suffering from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
He claimed forcing him to move put “an unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on his ability to conduct private and family life”.
But Mr Justice Mitting rejected EB’s bid to return to the capital.
However, his ruling revealed taxpayers pick up the bill every time his wife or mum travels to see him.
He said in his judgment: “I accept that it imposes a substantial burden upon EB’s wife and parents because they have to travel to a provincial city to see him.
“The burden is somewhat mitigated by the Secretary of State’s willingness to pay the cost of their travel.”
Other measures fought by the chancer included trying to lift a ban on him going to a National Express coach station and a Territorial Army base near where he lives.
The judge refused him permission to go to either, but said the Secretary of State should consider allowing him to travel through the base.
Related stories
His ruling also concludes other restrictions enforced by PM Theresa May when she was Home Secretary should remain in force.
These include a daily visit to a police station and wearing a GPS tag.
EB and his bomb-plot accomplice, known as EF, were tracked by MI5 in 2013 after returning from Syria.
They had planned to visit another terror suspect in Cairo, Egypt, during the trip.
When the friends returned, MI5 recorded them talking about buying a gun and bullets for £1,000.
EB was also caught with instructions for improvised explosives.
There was uproar this week when it was revealed only one UK terror suspect was subject to a T-Pim, the toughest tool the security services have to limit activities of plotters.
They replaced Control Orders in 2011, which enforced house arrest.
Those were axed in a human rights row, led by Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems when they in Coalition Government.
Independent terror reviewer Lord Carlile said he hopes the Government considers “increasing the use of T-Pims or toughening them up”.
And Col Kemp added: “It says a lot about T-Pims that there is only one in force.
“The Government should reinstate control orders, which were more effective.
"If we have to use T-Pims, judges should not have the leeway to weaken the measures put in place by government and security services.”