UK: Samar and Jawad refused parole
01 January 2008
Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh were convicted in 1996 of conspiracy in relation to bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in 1994. The conviction was obtained despite evidence pointing to suspects unrelated to Samar or Jawad which was not disclosed to the defence and then suppressed by ministers through gagging orders.
Jawad's parole hearing took place on Monday 17 September 2007. Samar's parole hearing took place on Wednesday 19 September 2007. Jawad's application was turned down on Monday 24 September, and Samar's on Wednesday 26 September 2007. The legal team has lodged an appeal. Jawad had already been turned down by the Home Secretary two years ago. Samar has been waiting for two and half years for her case to be heard. According to campaigners, the parole board cut and pasted paragraphs from the text for Jawad and used it for Samar's parole rejection. "This is symbolic of their attitude: the parole board essentially views them as two irredeemable terrorists."
The Parole Board Decision:
* Overlooked the excellent prison behaviour that the two have maintained since 1996.
* Overlooked the fact that their risk assessment scores are so low that they should have been in open prison since 2004
* Dismissed the dozens of supportive letters as being misguided by the belief that Samar and Jawad are innocent.
* Dismissed the fact that both took rehabilitation courses.
* Dismissed the fact that they have family and friends here and in Lebanon to look after them and live with them.
* Dismissed the political guarantees offered by Lebanon and public figures in the UK to re-assure that their release does not represent a risk.
* In Samar's case, the board argued that they are concerned about public security in Lebanon not just in the UK. They also dismissed the urgency of her parent's very poor health because the parents are being looked after by other siblings.
The campaign states:
The gist of the reasons behind the rejections are inadmissible and unjust. They are about prejudice and discrimination. Worst of all, they offer no way forward. What can you do to earn release if you have fulfilled all the objective requirements and you have passed the halfway point of your 20-year sentence? What can you do if all you say and all the positive points you earn after a decade of incarceration are dismissed as "self-reporting" progress? What can a prisoner do if the system does not believe its own standards and criteria?
To date, the fingerprints of the bombers have never been identified or linked to the appellants. To date, key questions about the bombings remain unanswered.
Dr Young, a psychologist, was employed by the Home Office to produce a report on Samar as to her suitability for parole. Her report suggested that Samar should not be released. In Jawad's case a psychologist had twice recommended he be released, but this is not what the Home Office wanted to hear so Dr Young was asked to report on Jawad for his second parole hearing. She claimed the previous positive conclusion by the government expert and prison staff was due to Jawad's manipulative nature, and therefore recommended continued incarceration. Her report on Samar has been discredited. It was the unanimous opinion of all 6 experts engaged by the defence, that Dr Young had made so many value laden statements and unsafe assumptions in the report that it had little place in a professional clinical opinion.
Snapshots from Dr Young's report: Catch 22
* Samar could use her sister's passport (as a twin) to escape
* Samar's wearing of a headscarf and a "make poverty history" wristband are suspicious and controversial
* Samar's appeal to Dr Young to hurry up with the submissions because her parents are old and in ill health shows that Samar is giving orders and being manipulative (the parole process took nearly two years before the final hearing)
* Dr Young suggested that Samar's concern about her parents