Wrongly arrested brother of 9/11 suspect wins damages

obmar · Wrongly arrested brother of 9/11 suspect wins damages

Wrongly arrested brother of 9/11 suspect wins damages
for wrong arrest
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Published: 01 December 2007

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article3212994.ece

The brother of a pilot wrongly accused of training the
11 September 2001 hijackers has succeeded in a High
Court bid to win damages for wrongful arrest.

Mohamed Raissi, whose brother Lotfi was the first
person accused of taking part in the attacks in New
York and Washington, secured victory after claiming he
was falsely imprisoned and unlawfully arrested days
after the attacks.

Mr Justice McCombe ruled in favour of Mohamed Raissi
yesterday, announcing that "there will be judgment in
his favour for damages to be assessed".

But a similar claim by his brother's wife, Sonia, was
rejected. Mrs Raissi and Mohamed Raissi were each
seeking damages in excess of £150,000 in the action.

Lotfi Raissi was arrested 10 days after 11 September
following an extradition request from the United
States. He and his wife were living in Colnbrook,
Berkshire, at the time. He was released in February
2002 and a judge ruled that there was "no evidence"
that he was connected to the 11 September attacks or
any form of terrorism. His wife and brother were also
arrested. Mrs Raissi, a French-born dancer who was
working as an Air France customer service agent at
Heathrow Airport, was released without charge after
five days.

Mohamed Raissi, now 35, was arrested at his home in
Hounslow and held for about 42 hours before also being
released without charge. The Metropolitan Police
denied liability and were granted permission to
appeal.

In February, Lotfi Raissi lost his High Court battle
for compensation after judges said it did not qualify
for an award despite being held for nearly five months
at Belmarsh Prison.

Yesterday Mr Justice McCombe said the only issue in
each case "is as to the reasonableness or otherwise"
of the grounds on which each of the arresting officers
acted. He said the question to be answered was:
"Assuming the officer had the necessary suspicion was
there reasonable cause for suspicion?"

In the case of Mrs Raissi, he ruled that the factors
that the arresting officer had in mind "amply
justified the arrest". He said: "She had been with him
in a foreign country at a time when he might well have
been thought to have been engaged, at the same time
and at the same location, in the very training which
was being undergone by one of the known perpetrators
of the atrocities."

Mr Justice McCombe ruled that Mohamed Raissi's case
was "quite different" although he said he had "not the
slightest doubt" that the officer acted in "a
professional manner". He said: "He was simply thought
to be the close brother of a major suspect and the two
lived geographically fairly close to each other; each
had access to the home of the other in this country."
The judge ruled: "In my judgment those grounds were
not sufficient to justify the arrest."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~