Lord Hermer’s Legal Battle for al-Qaeda Figure’s Compensation Revealed

[Social Media]

 

It has emerged that Lord Hermer fought to secure compensation from the British government for Rangzieb Ahmed, a high-profile al-Qaeda operative linked to the July 7 bombings. Acting in his capacity as a lawyer, the Attorney General represented Ahmed, a convicted terrorist, in a legal case where he sought damages for alleged torture at the hands of Pakistan’s authorities.

 

The 2020 case examined whether UK police, intelligence services, and government departments could be held jointly liable for alleged actions carried out by Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror. If the court had ruled in Ahmed’s favor, he could have received substantial compensation from British taxpayers while serving his prison sentence.

 

 

Ahmed, now 49, was once regarded as Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man and the leader of al-Qaeda’s operations in Europe. He was the first individual in Britain to be convicted for “directing” terrorist activities and, in 2008, was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison. His criminal record includes involvement in multiple terror plots, including the devastating July 7, 2005, London bombings that killed 52 people.

 

Lord Hermer, then a barrister at Matrix Chambers, represented Ahmed in the High Court in 2020. The case named six key government entities as defendants: the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and Greater Manchester Police. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed Ahmed’s claim against all six.

 

 

Ahmed, a British citizen of Pakistani descent, was arrested in Pakistan in 2006 and later claimed to have endured torture and mistreatment at the hands of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. He alleged that British authorities were aware of his ordeal and had even supplied his interrogators with questions. Among his claims were severe beatings and the removal of three fingernails by Pakistani forces.

 

Pakistan deported Ahmed to Britain in 2007, where he was subsequently convicted of multiple terrorism offenses. In 2010, he attempted to appeal his conviction, arguing that it was “unsafe,” but the Court of Appeal dismissed his case, stating there was “no evidence” to support his claims.

 

During the 2020 case, Lord Hermer faced criticism for what was perceived as an attempt to “relitigate” aspects of Ahmed’s conviction through civil proceedings. However, he contended that “there is nothing in the pleaded case which could cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.” He further argued that recent disclosures regarding British complicity in the torture of terror suspects strengthened Ahmed’s claims. The court, however, found these arguments unpersuasive and dismissed the case.

 

The legal battle sparked political backlash, with Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, publicly questioning Lord Hermer’s history of defending controversial figures. “The barristers cab-rank rule is long established. But what first attracted Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, Phil Shiner, and al-Qaeda terrorists to Lord Hermer’s cab?” Jenrick said. He further criticized Hermer’s reluctance to disclose his financial interests and his cautious legal approach, asserting that “he’s unfit to be Attorney General.”

 

Ahmed’s attempts to secure early release from prison have repeatedly failed. In September 2022, his parole request was denied due to concerns about his potential danger to the public. In 2023, he was instructed to complete a deradicalization program as a prerequisite for a future parole hearing. Despite this, his 2024 parole request was again rejected on the grounds that he remained a public safety risk.

 

A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office responded to criticisms by emphasizing the professional obligations of legal practitioners. “Law officers such as the Attorney General will naturally have an extensive legal background and may have previously been involved in a wide number of past cases. It is a feature and cornerstone of our legal system that legal professionals operate the cab-rank rule when it comes to clients, and barristers do not associate themselves with their clients’ opinions.”

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph  2025-02-18

 

 

[The Old Bull]

Typical lawyer no social conscience just motivated by greed. They like these cases because when the money comes from the government trough they are guaranteed to get paid.

[Grusa]

How much simpler if they just executed him.

[klauskunkel]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Hermer’s reluctance to disclose his financial interests

There it is

[Thingamabob]

Hermer. a thoroughly nasty piece of work, and Starmer, are close friends. One wonders where Britain is heading with people like this in charge.

[Chomper Higgot]

More smear campaigning from the once great Daily Telegraph.

 

As a Barrister Lord Hermer, then QC, latterly KC was obliged under law to accept the cases presented him:

 

”In English law, the cab rank rule refers to the obligations of barristers to accept any work in their speciality, provided they are available and appropriately compensated; this means they cannot discriminate against particular clients even if they disagree with the client’s views or actions.”

 

https://www.stpaulschambers.com/cab-rank-rule-for-barristers/

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, The Old Bull said:

Typical lawyer no social conscience just motivated by greed. They like these cases because when the money comes from the government trough they are guaranteed to get paid.

Ill-informed nonsense.

 

Refer link above.

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More smear campaigning from the once great Daily Telegraph.

 

As a Barrister Lord Hermer, then QC, latterly KC was obliged under law to accept the cases presented him:

 

”In English law, the cab rank rule refers to the obligations of barristers to accept any work in their speciality, provided they are available and appropriately compensated; this means they cannot discriminate against particular clients even if they disagree with the client’s views or actions.”

 

https://www.stpaulschambers.com/cab-rank-rule-for-barristers/

Rubbish, all he had to do was say he's too busy. Guess he was also not too busy when he acted for Gerry Adams.

 

"some barristers may avoid taking up unfavourable work by simply saying they are too busy to take on the case"

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More smear campaigning from the once great Daily Telegraph.

 

As a Barrister Lord Hermer, then QC, latterly KC was obliged under law to accept the cases presented him:

 

”In English law, the cab rank rule refers to the obligations of barristers to accept any work in their speciality, provided they are available and appropriately compensated; this means they cannot discriminate against particular clients even if they disagree with the client’s views or actions.”

 

https://www.stpaulschambers.com/cab-rank-rule-for-barristers/

More smear campaigning from the once great Daily Telegraph.

 

Daily Telegraph has been shortlisted for 18 honours at this years press awards, how many is the Guardian shortlisted for?

[Purdey]

People are innocent until proven guilty. People are entitled to a lawyer. Lawyers must defend their clients. Courts will decide who is guilty or not.

It's all pretty straightforward. 

[Bkk Brian]

19 minutes ago, Purdey said:

People are innocent until proven guilty. People are entitled to a lawyer. Lawyers must defend their clients. Courts will decide who is guilty or not.

It's all pretty straightforward. 

Did you even read why he engaged a lawyer? He was already a convicted terrorist and now wanted compensation alleging torture while in jail in Pakistan!!

 

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

It has emerged that Lord Hermer fought to secure compensation from the British government for Rangzieb Ahmed, a high-profile al-Qaeda operative linked to the July 7 bombings. Acting in his capacity as a lawyer, the Attorney General represented Ahmed, a convicted terrorist, in a legal case where he sought damages for alleged torture at the hands of Pakistan’s authorities.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, Purdey said:

People are innocent until proven guilty. People are entitled to a lawyer. Lawyers must defend their clients. Courts will decide who is guilty or not.

It's all pretty straightforward. 

As importantly, everyone is entitled to legal representation before any court criminal or civil.

 

It’s not a right that any conviction removes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As importantly, everyone is entitled to legal representation before any court criminal or civil.

 

It’s not a right that any conviction removes.

 

 

Who made a claim that a conviction denies you a right to claim you were tortured in Pakistan? Even though you are a convicted terrorist and connected to the horrific attacks in London.

 

Oh keep trying to justify the terrorists attempt to get some money eh. How sad

[Social Media]

Nonsense troll post removed @beautifulthailand99

[nahkit]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More smear campaigning from the once great Daily Telegraph.

 

As a Barrister Lord Hermer, then QC, latterly KC was obliged under law to accept the cases presented him:

 

”In English law, the cab rank rule refers to the obligations of barristers to accept any work in their speciality, provided they are available and appropriately compensated; this means they cannot discriminate against particular clients even if they disagree with the client’s views or actions.”

 

https://www.stpaulschambers.com/cab-rank-rule-for-barristers/

"The legal battle sparked political backlash, with Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, publicly questioning Lord Hermer’s history of defending controversial figures. “The barristers cab-rank rule is long established. But what first attracted Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, Phil Shiner, and al-Qaeda terrorists to Lord Hermer’s cab?”

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, Grusa said:

How much simpler if they just executed him.

 

You mean the lawyer?

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, nahkit said:

"The legal battle sparked political backlash, with Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, publicly questioning Lord Hermer’s history of defending controversial figures. “The barristers cab-rank rule is long established. But what first attracted Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, Phil Shiner, and al-Qaeda terrorists to Lord Hermer’s cab?”

Do you want to make the argument that these people do not have any right to legal representation?

 

We can then examine where you think line should be drawn.

[JonnyF]

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More smear campaigning from the once great Daily Telegraph.

 

As a Barrister Lord Hermer, then QC, latterly KC was obliged under law to accept the cases presented him:

 

”In English law, the cab rank rule refers to the obligations of barristers to accept any work in their speciality, provided they are available and appropriately compensated; this means they cannot discriminate against particular clients even if they disagree with the client’s views or actions.”

 

https://www.stpaulschambers.com/cab-rank-rule-for-barristers/

 

Funny how he always seems to be at the front of the cab rank when high profile terrorists need defending.

 

Uncanny in fact.😄

 

No wonder he gets on well with 2 Tier Keir.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Funny how he always seems to be at the front of the cab rank when high profile terrorists need defending.

 

Uncanny in fact.😄

 

No wonder he gets on well with 2 Tier Keir.

Maybe you don’t understand how ‘Chambers’ function.

 

On your 2 tier thing, do agree that everyone being provided legal representation is an example of single tier justice?

 

 

 

[phetphet]

If he was arrested in Pakistan and mistreated in Pakistan, why didn't he make his claim through the courts in Pakistan?

[Bkk Brian]

54 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you want to make the argument that these people do not have any right to legal representation?

 

We can then examine where you think line should be drawn.

No he didn't say that or imply that, just you doing that. Sounds like another terrorist sympathizer with that client list.

[Grusa]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You mean the lawyer?

up to you........

[Chomper Higgot]

It’s worth spending a few moments to read up on Lord Hermer’s bio.

 

Especially given the disgraceful innuendo being leveled against him.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hermer,_Baron_Hermer

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s worth spending a few moments to read up on Lord Hermer’s bio.

 

Especially given the disgraceful innuendo being leveled against him.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hermer,_Baron_Hermer

Yes spend a few more moments for this terrorist sympathizer, I bet you have all the time in the world to read about him.

 

A dossier circulating in Westminster details how, in July 2009, Hermer fought to bail out a student who was arrested and accused of being days away from committing a terror attack. His client, a Pakistani student known as XC, was arrested together with seven others that April. MI5 concluded that a coded exchange of emails between XC and a suspected al-Qaeda associate referred to the ingredients of an explosive device.

https://archive.ph/TpgAz

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/attorney-general-tichard-hermer-starmer-gx63vmsdz

 

Attorney General Lord Hermer is an ‘arrogant, progressive fool’ who must be fired, says fellow Labour peer

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14382621/Attorney-General-Lord-Hermer-arrogant-progressive-fool-fired.html

 

Keir Starmer faces growing calls to sack his top legal advisor Lord Hermer after Attorney General defended disgraced human rights lawyer Phil Shiner

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14391161/Keir-Starmer-faces-growing-calls-sack-legal-advisor-Lord-Hermer-Attorney-General-defended-disgraced-human-rights-lawyer-Phil-Shiner.html

[nahkit]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you want to make the argument that these people do not have any right to legal representation?

 

We can then examine where you think line should be drawn.

Did I write that ?