Mr David Blunkett,
Home Secretary
Queen Anne’s Gate
London SW1 9AT

Dear Home Secretary,

Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh are two young people who are in prison, convicted of a crime they did not commit. Their appeal against their convictions in connection with the 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House was rejected in November 2001. I am writing to you to express my grave concern about the safety of their convictions, and my alarm at the admissions during their appeal that there were a series of astonishing failures to disclose vital evidence at their original trial. Their grossly unfair trial was followed by an equally unfair appeal.

These failures meant that extremely relevant evidence was not even shown to the trial judge through an unbelievable series of "human errors", which affected the intelligence services, prosecution, and police, up to the trial in 1996. I am dismayed that these monumental failures have not been rectified since and have resulted in two innocent young people suffering grave injustice. I am writing to ask what steps have been taken to rectify these "errors" and to ensure they are not repeated elsewhere? Despite admitting the relevance of this material, your predecessor compounded these failures by signing a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate in 1998. Had Mr Straw not claimed PII, the ‘new’ evidence would already have been investigated by the defence, and would have been revealed to Samar & Jawad, who need it to prove their innocence. Worse still, it was only in October 2000 that the defence received a lead about information that the police had had since 1994 about a possible suspect in the bombings. This is yet more evidence that was not properly disclosed, and which was instead lost by police. This, taken together with the numerous unanswered questions in the case, leads to the logical conclusion that the investigation of the bombings was far from rigorous and therefore remains manifestly incomplete.

In the current climate of "War on Terror", some governments are attacking human rights, including internment without trial on the basis of secret intelligence information. In Samar & Jawad's case, MI5 ignored specific warnings about bombing attacks on London. While Samar & Jawad remain convicted, the perpetrators of the bombing know that they are unlikely to be brought to justice, in spite of the fact that evidence uncovered so far points to the guilt of parties unrelated to Samar or Jawad. Who thought it appropriate to conceal or deny access to material that undermines the main basis of the prosecution's case? The CPS maintained there was an 'intelligence vacuum' surrounding the bombings, with no known terrorist group involved in the attacks, which were said to be the work of a small, amateur, isolated group of London-based Palestinians. This government and the prosecution still deny the defence masses of other substantive evidence.

In light of the Human Rights Act, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that the appellants’ right to a fair and open hearing as guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights is respected. The injustices and breaches that occurred at both trial and on appeal must be put to an end. So far, the government’s policy of suppressing crucial evidence is undermining the integrity of the legal process. As with any human being, if Samar and Jawad are innocent as they have been saying since 1995, then they should be fully assisted to prove it.

Even if material cannot be disclosed for reasons other than "human error", then I urge you to concede that the cumulative effect of all the above matters renders their convictions unsafe. The longer this injustice is allowed to go on, the worse the consequences are for both the public’s confidence in this country’s justice system and for this country’s human rights record. I look forward to hearing of your positive response in the interests of fairness and justice.

Yours sincerely
,

Mr David Calvert-Smith, QC
Director of Public Prosecutions
Crown Prosecution Service Headquarters
50 Ludgate Hill
London EC4M 7EX

Dear Mr Calvert-Smith,

Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh

I am writing to you to express my grave concern about the case of Ms Samar Alami and Mr Jawad Botmeh, and my deepest doubts about the safety of their convictions in 1996, for conspiracy to cause explosions in relation to the 1994 London bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House.

I am deeply distressed by the revelation at their appeal in October 2000 that the prosecution, police and intelligence services systematically failed to disclose vital evidence even to the trial judge. I am appalled at the admitted catalogue of "human errors" in disclosure, which is both unprofessional and unacceptable. Given your on-going duty to disclose, why did you not act beforehand to remedy these errors if indeed they were errors? What has been done to ensure there are no more "human errors"? Has disciplinary action been taken against police officers and lawyers who fail to comply with current guidelines on disclosure, as recommended by the Attorney General?

I am extremely alarmed that you have been denying the appellants access to evidence that helps to prove their innocence, since it contradicts the main planks of the case you painted at trial, and hence undermines your contention that there was an "intelligence vacuum". Without this "vacuum", could you really have been able to put it to the jury that the bombings were carried out by a small, previously unknown group of dissident Palestinians, including Samar & Jawad? It seems that on your own evidence, both disclosed and still suppressed, far from there being an "intelligence vacuum", there is actually a substantial body of information that implicates parties unrelated to the appellants. I was also dismayed that more evidence unconnected to the appellants given to police in 1994 was not fully disclosed, and that documents went missing from a police station. All these are leads that could have affected the jury.

In light of all these facts, it is impossible to say that Samar & Jawad were safely tried or convicted. In contrast to what the appeal judges said, I believe that their convictions are unsafe and that their trial was unfair. This breach of human rights continues to be aggravated by your persistent policy of suppressing the bulk of the evidence, which was withheld from the trial judge. Such a policy is even more unacceptable in light of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In public, you stressed the vital importance of "Fair, timely and focused disclosure of material gathered by the police and others, which may undermine the prosecution case…", arguing that "Without it, the innocent will be convicted, the guilty acquitted and the system as a whole will lose the respect of the public…". Is it not time to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done here? Given the serious flaws and breaches exposed in this case, and given that the actual bombers have not been caught, is it not time to admit that this is a miscarriage of justice? I urge you to review your position, and, whether or not you disclose evidence, to concede that the convictions are neither safe nor sound, and allow Samar & Jawad to rebuild their lives. I look forward to hearing of your positive action in the interests of justice.

Yours sincerely

Dear

Ms Samar Alami & Mr Jawad Botmeh: victims of a miscarriage of justice

I am writing to you to express my grave concern about human rights breaches in the case of Miss Samar Alami and Mr Jawad Botmeh and in particular Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 1/11/2001, Samar & Jawad lost their appeal against their wrongful conviction in relation to the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in 1994. Yet, the October 2000 appeal showed that the prosecution (CPS) and the government have been denying them access to evidence vital for proving their innocence. I fear that the Government is presiding over a miscarriage of justice for reasons that have little to do with justice, and one which has very serious implications for this country's human rights' record, the regulation of intelligence services, and the abuse of secrecy laws by ministers. The appeal judges failed to address this unfairness or to offer remedies for breaches.

Samar & Jawad’s convictions were largely secured by the outrageous suppression of evidence; Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates or gagging orders were used before, during, and after trial, and also at the appeal. After yet another PII hearing, the appeal judges ordered the disclosure of 1 piece of information, which revealed that: MI5, MI6, Special Branch and the CPS knew, prior to the bombings, that a terrorist organisation was planning the attacks. Without elaborating, the document adds that this terrorist organisation did not carry out the bombings. The document claims incredibly that, as a result of no less than 6 occasions of "human error", this information was not disclosed to the trial judge. It does not explain the post-trial failures by the CPS to fulfil its disclosure obligations, or the role of the Home Secretary's 1998 gagging order. Nothing was said about investigating such "errors" or avoiding them in the future. Further, in October 2001, the CPS dismissed information received about a possible suspect unrelated to the appellants, but admitted that - although held by police - it had been lost.
* This is either astonishing incompetence or a deliberate conspiracy to frame innocent people.
* The CPS knowingly pursued the false scenario of an "intelligence vacuum". From the outset, they and the security agencies knew of several candidates, unrelated to the defendants, who were interested in carrying out the attacks. This is an entirely different picture to the one painted to the judge and jury.
* Given that substantial compelling evidence was withheld from judge, jury and defence, the original trial was unfair. This is a breach of the constitutional right to a fair and open hearing.
* The bulk of the evidence continues to be withheld, including any reference to Israel, and the warning received by the Embassy and passed on to the Foreign Office at the time. This miscarriage of justice is being blocked by the involvement of several intelligence services, and extremely high-powered political considerations.

The suppression of vital evidence by so many branches of the executive has prevented the judicial process from undertaking its most essential function - to enable defendants to prove their innocence. Amnesty International is concerned that Samar & Jawad "have been denied the right to a fair trial" (5/11/2001). Human rights groups such as Justice and Liberty argue that non-disclosure is a major cause of miscarriages of justice. In July 2000, the Court of Appeal agreed with a European Court of Human Rights' ruling that the prosecution's failure to lay evidence before a trial judge to rule on disclosure deprives applicants of a fair trial. Is the Government making the appellants into another Rowe & Davis, who lost their 1993 appeal because of PIIs and the suppression of evidence, despite the enactment of the Human Rights Act?

Without your intervention, the authorities will continue to suppress evidence with disregard for the requirements of a fair and open legal process. Despite being innocent of involvement in the bombings and having an excellent defence team, Samar & Jawad may well be buried alive with the evidence for years to come. I urge you to make representations to the Home Secretary expressing your concern. If material cannot be disclosed, then an alternative solution that would free and exonerate Samar and Jawad must be found now. I thank you for your attention and look forward to hearing of your positive action.

Yours sincerely

---

His Excellency the British Ambassador
British Embassy


Fax:

Date

Dear Sir,

In November 2001, Ms Samar Alami (Lebanese Palestinian), and Jawad Botmeh (Palestinian), lost their appeal against their wrongful convictions in connection to the 1994 London bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House. The appeal mainly related to undisclosed material which was never shown to the trial judge or the defence.

At the appeal, it was admitted that there were a series of failures and "human errors" in disclosure by the intelligence agencies, prosecution and police, and furthermore that information implicating parties unconnected to the appellants has been suppressed since 1994. The British Government is still denying the defence the bulk of the evidence through the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates.

In Rowe and Davis (the "M25" case) the European Court of Human Rights and subsequently the Court of Appeal ruled that the suppression of vital evidence and use of gagging orders breached the defendants' right to a fair trial. In light of the Human Rights Act 1998, such breaches must be avoided, or alternatively if a breach has occurred, it must be rectified. This of course applies to Samar & Jawad's case.

The perception that justice has been denied can only alienate Arab public opinion, and damage the belief that Arabs in Great Britain can expect fair and equal treatment. Restoring this trust is even more urgent in light of the 'war against terrorism': justice can never be served by jailing the wrong people and leaving the true perpetrators free to act again. Further, you will no doubt agree that any measure that alleviates the suffering of Palestinians and remedies injustice will bring us closer to a durable peace.

We therefore urge you to ask the Government to rectify its past "errors", and either to declare their convictions unsafe, or disclose all relevant material. This is vital, for it presents the only means by which Samar and Jawad can prove their innocence. Failure to do this will result in the continued incarceration of two people who have already served nearly seven years for a crime they did not commit.

Your assistance in the interests of justice and fairness is eagerly anticipated.

Yours faithfully