Fugitive terror suspect sues over torture claim

London Evening Standard/LondonThe terror suspect at the centre of a nationwide manhunt after escaping dressed in a burqa is suing UK taxpayers in a legal battle that could see him paid hundreds of thousands of pounds. Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed — under a “Tpim” terrorism prevention order due to his links with Somali extremist group Al Shebaab — is on the run after vanishing from an Acton mosque on Friday.But a High Court judgment yesterday reveals that despite his escape Mohamed is mounting a human rights compensation claim against the government over his earlier detention in east Africa. The document says Mohamed and a terror suspect known as CF allege they were “unlawfully detained, tortured and mistreated” during a two-month incarceration in a Somaliland jail in 2011. The two men also claim that British “agents or officers” arranged or allowed the illegal activity to take place and that the government is “liable under the Human Rights Act” and other laws for their mistreatment. Both men’s allegations are denied by government lawyers, who have told the High Court that British authorities reject any suggestion of “misbehaviour or complicity with misbehaviour” and that the pair’s claims lack credibility.If their claims are upheld in later court hearings, however, both could be eligible for payouts potentially totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds each. Previous cases involving terror suspects allegedly subjected to mistreatment overseas involving UK agents have led to multi-million-pound payouts.  Yesterday’s disclosure will provoke anger among MPs and prompted renewed calls for the terror suspect to surrender himself to police. Tory MP Dominic Raab said: “If Mohamed wants to use the Human Rights Act to sue the government then he should give himself up and make his case in court.” Yesterday’s high court judgment paves the way for some of the evidence relating to the damages claim by both men to be heard in secret. Judges will rule on whether they should receive payouts at future High Court hearings. The ruling yesterday centres on whether government evidence can be heard in private because of the potential damage to national security and international relations, which ministers say would be caused by full disclosure in public. It gives only brief details of the men’s allegations, saying that Mohamed left Britain in 2007 and was followed two years later by CF. The judgment says Mohamed alleges the UK authorities applied for a control order to be imposed on him prior to his detention in Somaliland and knew that he was about to be arrested .