News World

Terrorist Rangzieb Ahmed loses legal bid for ‘torture damages’

Terrorist Rangzieb Ahmed

A fear monger who sued MI5 and MI6 for supposed arrangement in his torment in Pakistan has had his harms guarantee tossed out by the High Court.

Rangzieb Ahmed, of Greater Manchester, was imprisoned in 2008 for dread offenses.

He claimed he was beaten during his cross examinations in Pakistan prior to being extradited to the UK to stand preliminary.

The 45-year-old’s affable case has been excused as it “would sabotage one of the fundamental establishments of the choice of the criminal court”.

Ahmed, from Rochdale, who was imprisoned for existence with at least 10 years, was the principal individual to be indicted in the UK of coordinating psychological oppression.

Manchester Crown Court heard he headed a three-man al-Qaida cell which was planning to submit mass homicide.

However, he asserted he was tormented including having three of his fingernails pulled out by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence organization while confined somewhere in the range of 2006 and 2007.

‘Insurance assault’

Ahmed sued MI5, MI6, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Attorney General and Greater Manchester Police, guaranteeing they were complicit in his torment by providing inquiries to Pakistani officials.

Yet, the six respondents applied to strike out Ahmed’s case, contending that he was endeavoring to “re-dispute gives that have been chosen” before his criminal preliminary.

Mr Justice Garnham consented to toss out Ahmed’s case, saying “the impact of the common case, were it effective, would sabotage one of the basic establishments of the choice of the criminal court”.

The adjudicator said that such a case was “a guarantee assault on the choices” of the preliminary appointed authority and the Court of Appeal.

He likewise declined an application to depend on new proof which Ahmed’s attorneys contended showed MI5 and MI6’s “inclusion in the abuse of prisoners in unfamiliar states”.

Yet, Mr Justice Garnham said “it is plain…that proof with this impact and of this sort was accessible to the criminal courts”.