UK Court Convicts Hashem Abedi for the Manchester Bombing

Must Read

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Follow us

A UK Court has sentenced Hashem Abedi who assisted Salman Abedi who carried out a suicide bombing at Ariana Grande’s concert in Manchester. He was sentenced to at least 55 years of prison time.

Background 

On the 22nd of May 2017, the world was rocked when over 14,000 people were thrown under the threat of an improvised explosive device. Salman Abedi detonated an improvised explosive that caused the death of 22 humans and injured hundreds. This whole tragedy was orchestrated by Salman’s brother Hashem, both of whom were born and raised in the UK. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the sentencing was an opportunity to reflect on tolerance and kindness. The Manchester tragedy was an unimaginable one and the victims deserve the justice that the court delivered.

Court’s Findings 

The defendant was in the background of the crime while his brother was the suicide bomber. The court through many pieces of evidence found the defendant to be an integral part of the crime. The defendant had essential knowledge of electrical circuitry which was an integral part of the production of the improvised explosive device. Salman Abedi also remained in regular electronic contact with Libya, including a four-minute phone conversation during his final journey to the Manchester arena. Many such findings led the jury to give the decision as guilty. 

Court’s Opinion 

The defendant was held guilty for 22 counts of murder, attempted murder, and plotting to cause an explosion. Hashem was held guilty of encouraging his brother Salman to become a suicide bomber. The judgment was given by Justice Jeremy Barker. The court said that the defendant’s role in the event is integral and not negligible. 

Judgment

The defendant was found guilty of 22 counts of murder, there is only one sentence which can be imposed upon him for these offences and that is a sentence of imprisonment for life which is the sentence the court imposed upon him. The court had to determine the appropriate length of the minimum term which he will have to serve before the Parole Board considers parole. The court held the defendant should be confined for a minimum period of 55 years per section 269, 270, and Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -