Islamist Killer's £240K Human Rights Win: Solitary Confinement Ruled Unfair Amid Gang Risks

An Islamist double killer has won £241,500 ($325,518) in taxpayer-funded compensation and legal costs after a High Court judge ruled his prolonged solitary confinement breached his human rights due to risks from an anti-Muslim prison gang.

Fuad Awale, serving a life sentence with a minimum 38-year term, claimed the isolation caused him severe depression and anxiety. Justice Secretary David Lammy approved the settlement on behalf of the government, sparking immediate backlash from opposition figures.

Background to the Murders and Imprisonment

Awale, originally from Milton Keynes, was just 25 when he carried out the calculated executions of teenagers Abdi Farah, 19, and Amin Ahmed Ismail, 18, shooting both in the head during a drugs dispute in a local alleyway back in 2011. The judge at his 2013 trial described the killings as a planned operation, handing him a whole-life tariff with no chance of parole for at least 38 years.

Barely months into his sentence, Awale escalated matters by ambushing a prison officer alongside another inmate, holding the man hostage and issuing demands that included the release of radical cleric Abu Qatada. This earned him an additional six-year term and a transfer to a high-security separation unit designed for the UK's most dangerous extremists, where officials aimed to curb his influence and prevent radicalisation among fellow prisoners.

By March 2023, he had been fully isolated at HMP Woodhill, partly due to threats from the so-called Death Before Dishonour gang, known for targeting Muslim inmates—a measure that, while protective, left him without any association for over two years. Awale's requests to mix with other high-profile terrorists, such as the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby, were repeatedly denied on counter-terrorism grounds.

Details of the Human Rights Ruling

The High Court case centred on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to private and family life. Mrs Justice Ellenbogan, presiding over the hearing, found that the Ministry of Justice had failed to conduct proper reviews of Awale's segregation, with decisions lacking transparency and denying him a fair chance to contest his conditions. She noted the 'degree of interference with the claimant's private life has been of some significance and duration.'

Evidence presented included Awale's deteriorating mental health, with reports of suicidal thoughts, self-harm attempts, and assaults on staff amid his isolation. The ruling echoed similar successful appeals by other extremists, such as gangland convert Denny De Silva and terror plotter Sahayb Abu, whose cases have collectively cost taxpayers nearly £500,000 in legal fees alone.

In Awale's timeline of events—from the 2011 shootings to his 2013 hostage incident, then escalating restrictions by 2023—the court highlighted procedural lapses that rendered the solitary regime unlawful, entitling him to damages despite his grave offences. The Ministry acknowledged the judgment but stressed that dangerous radicalisers would still face separation where risks demanded it.

Political Reaction to the Payout

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick branded the decision a 'sick joke,' urging emergency legislation to exempt such cases from ECHR constraints and protect national security. Lammy, in a letter to Jenrick dated 29 December, described the £7,500 ($10,109) compensation as a modest element of the overall sum, contested as standard for terrorist-related litigation.

The government insisted it would not bow to prisoner threats, with a spokesperson affirming commitment to the convention while reviewing its application. On X, anti-crime campaigner Deport Foreign Criminals detailed Awale's offences and the ruling, calling attention to the mental health fallout from gang threats.