20 October 2004: Samar is finally de-categorised. The prison board finally made an effort to listen, and now deemed that she can be trusted in 'semi-open' conditions. She has been within a semi-open wing within HMP Send since last year. Therefore their decision is only logical and should have been made months ago.
There is no doubt that without the numerous letters supporting Samar from all across the country helped tilt the balance, particularly in view of the board's emphasis on 'public confidence'. In the 'current political climate', this victory is no small feat.

August 2004: Jawad's appeal for Category D is turned down.

12 July 2004: Samar is told she will not be granted further decategorisation three months after the decategorisation review board sat. The prison authorities inform Samar of their decision following pressure from public figures and Samar's solicitor.

April 2004: Jawad's de-categorisation review for Category D is unsuccessful. Category D status would allow Jawad to move to open prison conditions - the last stage before parole. Jawad will appeal against this decision.

26 March 2004: Review of Samar's status by the de-categorisation review board.

May 2003: Jawad is granted Category C. This new status eases the way to further decategorisation and eventually parole. However, despite having followed the same path as Jawad, Samar is refused de-categorisation. She is currently studying the options with her legal team, including an appeal to the prison service headquarters and judicial review.

20 November 2002: The House of Lords informs the defence that the appeal by Samar and Jawad has been rejected, thereby accepting the prosecution's case.
In July 2002, the Lords had provisionally accepted the application for leave to appeal. The two questions submitted to the Law Lords are:
1. Is it lawful, within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to sit ex-parte in order to consider an application by the Crown to withhold relevant evidence on grounds of public interest immunity, where the evidence in question was not the subject of a public interest immunity application to the trial judge, and thereafter to uphold the claim to public immunity and to dismiss the appeal?
2. Does the answer to Question 1 depend upon whether the trial took place before
2nd October 2000?
The defence will now take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Summer 2002: Samar and Jawad have been moved to semi-open prisons.

01 November 2001: At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Rose announced that Samar and Jawad's appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal also rejected an application to reduce the 20-year sentences. The ruling was greeted by cries of "shame" by supporters of the appelants in the public gallery.

16-17 October 2001: The 2-day appeal ended with a reserved judgement.
The judges refused to call a vital new witness brought from Australia by the defence. The police have lost evidence about a suspect, unrelated to Samar or Jawad, handed to the police in 1994 before the bombing - including a map of the embassy, of Finchley, and a 5-page ammunition list.
The defence repeated its specific requests for further information in possession of the prosecution and security services, including material which may connect the London bombings to others carried out at the same time in Argentina and Panama.

10 October 2001: Paddy Hill (Birmingham Six) and members of the Campaign present a 4,400 petition to Downing Street, the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service.

July 2001: The appeal date is set to resume on October 16, 2001.

April 2001: The prosecution gives a dismissive response regarding the suspect.

27 October 2000: The appeal is adjourned so that:

• enquiries could be made by the defence into a fragment of previously suppressed evidence;
• investigations could be made into a new lead received by the defence during the appeal which had never been revealed to them. A freelance cameraman said he had reported his flatmate to the police after the bombings in 1994. Two detectives took a statement and seized several documents including a list of ammunition, a map of the Israeli Embassy and its defences.

26 October 2000: Following the PII hearing, the judges ordered the disclosure of only one piece of information out of several boxes brought into this appeal alone. This came in the form of a short hand-written manuscript. This previously withheld evidence confirms what was already publicly known thanks to Shayler, and says that, prior to the bombings, the authorities had information that a terrorist organisation was seeking information about the Israeli Embassy and its defences for a possible attack, but that after the bombings, "related intelligence information" indicated that the terrorist group did not carry out the attack. The manuscript explains that MI5, MI6, the police and the prosecution failed in disclosing this information even to the trial judge through at least six counts of "human error" and "oversight". What is not mentioned in the document is why the current Home Secretary signed the 1998 Public Interest Immunity certificate, at which point he would have been aware of the information, the bungling, and Shayler's allegations. The judges refused to disclose anything else.

24-25 October 2000: The appeal begins. The prosecution applies for and obtains an ex-parte or PII hearing. This happened despite the defence's arguments that in this case, and where evidence had been concealed even from the trial judge, holding such a hearing without it being followed by full disclosure would be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is incorporated into British law as of 2nd October 2000.

July 2000: After a 14-month wait, Samar and Jawad are finally told that their appeal is finally listed for 24 October 2000.

24 February 2000: The Category 'A' Review Committee accepts Samar and Jawad's third application to be de-categorised from their current Category 'A' or 'highly dangerous' status. SAMAR AND JAWAD ARE NOW DE-CATEGORISED. This means their prison conditions should improve. Nearly 1,100 signatures and representations have been submitted to the Prison Service in support of the de-categorisation over the last three years.

17 February 2000: A petition of over 200,000 signatures from Palestine and Lebanon calling for disclosure of evidence in the interest of justice is handed over to 10 Downing Street (the British Prime Minister's residence). The petition was presented by Dr Haider Abdel-Shafi, Dr Eyad Sarraj, Tony Benn MP, Lord Gilmour and members of Samar and Jawad's families.

10 May 1999: The appeal judges grant Samar and Jawad leave to appeal against their convictions on the ground that the withholding of evidence, including the "Shayler material", was in breach of the fairness of thetrial and therefore of Article 6 of the European Human RightsConvention, and on other related grounds presented by the defence inthe hearings of 29 and 30 March.

6-7 May 1999: The appeal judges "read" the material shown to them by the prosecution on 15/3/99.

29-30 March 1999: The application for leave to appeal scheduled for 29 March was postponed as the appeal judges agreed to a request by the defence to address a procedural point that arose as a result of the prosecution's failure to give notice of the PII hearing. This allowed the defence to alert the judges to the broader issues of the trial, and to the fact that several PIIs had already been used in this case. The non-disclosure particularly of new evidence that even the trial judge had not seen was argued to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the fairness of the trial. The legal arguments of the defence that were discussed over the two days were considerably strengthened by European Commission's ruling against non-diclosure in the M25 case, and by Lord Bingham's ruling on the unfairness of the P.T.A in the case of 4 Algerians charged with terrorism abroad. The defence focused on two possible remedies: to disclose all relevant material, and/or grant an appeal. The judges retired to consider the options, including their decision to recall the CPS in order to reconsider the material shown.

16 March 1999: Mrs Peirce is informed that the PII certificates were signed by the Home Secretary on 8 May 1998. In the hearing of the March 15, the appeal judges agreed to the implementation of the gagging orders. Nothing was given to the defence.

15 March 1999: PII hearing takes place in the afternoon. The campaign's picket was attended by around 40 people is maintained from 10:00 to 14:30 amidst press presence.

February-March 99: The campaign against the gagging of information in particular gathers strength. 2,500 letters were sent from the West Bank and Gaza to the Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecution, and Attorney General. The campaign there was led by the Palestinian Council for Human Rights Organisations, and covered all the NGOs network, and main universities. A further 50 letters signed by 50 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council were delivered to the British Consulate.
* In Lebanon, 140 leading personalities signed 3 letters each to the above-mentioned addressees. They included ex-prime ministers (3); MPs (23), cabinet members (3), government officials, human rights activists, academics, journalists, artists, professionals, and cultural organisations.
* In England a further 900 letters of protest were submitted, bringing the total to well over 1,000. These include representations from 33 MPs, 2 Lords, and 2 MEPs

20 December 1998: The CPS informs Samar that a PII hearing will be held on March 15, 1999.

6 December 1998: The Court of Appeal sets the date for the application for leave to appeal before a full court (i.e with three judges) for Marh 29, 1999.

November 1998: Robert Fisk publishes two major articles on the case in The Independent. The first centred on a photofit of Rida Mughrabi (the purchaser of the Audi that exploded at the embassy) produced by the defendants. The second focused on the fact that the appeal was stalled by the authorities' continued refusal to disclose new evidence. On December 1, Paul Foot responded with another major article in the Guardian entitled "Open these bomb files". He stressed that: there was evidence to the existence of Rida; the warning and senior MI6 officer written report could not be explained away; and "There is a lot to suggest that these two Palestinians in jail are innocent".

August 1998: Private Eye, a British fortnightly magazine reveals the existence of another piece of information hidden from the defence and the jury: "Soon after the bombing a senior MI5 manager wrote a note expressing his view that the Israelis had carried out the bombing on their own to embarrass the British government into providing more security for Israeli buildings and personnel. The note was written in September or October 1994, two or three months after the bombing.... the suggestion that a senior MI5 anti-terrorist agent believed that the Israelis were responsible obviously casts even more doubt on the convictions of Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh."

April 1998: The prosecution informs the defence that it is considering requesting a Public Interest Immunity (P.I.I) hearing regarding the disclosure of the warning received by M.I.5 about the attacks. Should such a hearing take place, the judge has to decide whether to order that the information should be disclosed to the defence. The defence has no independant access to this information and no ability to compel its production. As a reminder, several P.I.I. hearings took place before and during the trial.

March 1998: The prosecution informs the defence that their repeated enquiries are receiving 'active consideration'.

November 1997: Former M.I.5 agent David Shayler reveals to the Mail on Sunday and other media that the organisation had received a specific warning from a reliable source about possible attacks shortly before the actual bombings in July 1994. That warning was ignored and only retrieved after the attacks. This information clearly constitutes new evidence and points to a completely different direction than that indicated to the jury: if the warnings are as described, then those bombings could not have been carried out by Samar and Jawad. During the trial, the prosecution insisted the defendants were "quintessentially English Palestinians" who formed their own group, while the head of the investigation in the Anti-Terrorist Branch said that police was operating in an "intelligence vacuum". Samar and Jawad's lawyers immediately contacted the prosecution asking them to release this information which had been hidden from the public, the defence and the jury. The campaign wrote to the Home Secretary and to several MPs to the same effect

August 1997: Samar and Jawad apply to the Category 'A' Committee to be de-categorised from their current category 'A' status. Their application is turned down.

April 25, 1997: The appeal judge rejects the first application even though it was incomplete. The application was renewed to be considered by a full court of three judges.

January 1997: The defence team lodges an application for leave to appeal.