Islamic extremism just won a major victory in Britain — and it cost taxpayers over £200,000

We are once again seeing a case that risks damaging public confidence in how human rights laws are applied in the UK, writes independent researcher and commentator Rakib Ehsan.

At the centre of the controversy is Fuad Awale, a man serving a life sentence for the brutal killing of two teenagers in Milton Keynes in 2011, where he shot both victims in the head in an alleyway. Despite his violent past, Awale has now been awarded compensation after claiming he suffered severe depression because he was denied contact with other prisoners.

Awale was moved to a Close Supervision Centre, a high-security unit reserved for the most dangerous inmates, after a shocking incident in which he and another prisoner ambushed a prison officer, took him hostage, and threatened to kill him unless the UK released radical cleric Abu Qatada. This alone highlights the extreme risk Awale was considered to pose.

Prison authorities have assessed Awale as holding extremist beliefs. At one point, he asked to associate with one of the men responsible for murdering British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich in 2013. That killing was carried out by Islamist extremists Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Awale’s request was rejected due to serious counter-terrorism concerns.

His violent behaviour did not stop there. In January 2021, before being moved again within the prison system, Awale punched a prison officer in the face. He later claimed the attack was an act of “self-defence,” a claim many would find hard to accept given his record.

Prison officials said Awale’s isolation was necessary not only because of the danger he posed to others, but also due to threats against him from a prison gang known as “Death Before Dishonour,” which the court heard was committed to the eradication of Muslims from the prison system. Authorities told Awale that other inmates posed a serious risk to him and that there were no suitable prisoners for him to safely associate with.

However, Awale’s legal team argued that the Justice Secretary failed to properly consider how many racist or Islamophobic prisoners were in the supervision centre. They also claimed prison managers did not carry out regular reviews of his segregation, as required by law.

The court agreed with parts of this argument. Mrs Justice Ellenbogan ruled that Awale’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life, had been breached. She said the level of isolation he experienced interfered significantly with his private life over a long period.

The ruling has sparked fierce political backlash. Labour Justice Secretary David Lammy was accused by Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick of placing the European Convention on Human Rights above the safety of prison officers and the wider public. Jenrick argued that the government should have appealed the High Court’s decision instead of accepting it.

While the compensation awarded directly to Awale was £7,500, the total cost to taxpayers is far higher. The settlement includes around £234,000 in publicly funded legal fees. That figure has caused widespread anger, especially during a cost-of-living crisis where roughly one in three people in Britain have less than £500 saved for emergencies.

To put that legal bill into perspective, £234,000 is roughly the average house price in parts of the country such as Southampton in Hampshire or Cannock Chase in Staffordshire. For many families struggling to pay rent, energy bills, and food costs, the idea that this amount is being spent on legal costs for a convicted double murderer feels deeply unjust.

It is therefore easy to understand why many people feel that the UK’s current human-rights framework is being exploited by dangerous criminals. In this case, a convicted murderer with extremist views and a history of violence against prison staff has successfully argued that his rights were violated, while the safety concerns of officers and the public appear secondary.

This sense of injustice is likely to deepen existing public frustration with political leaders, reinforcing the belief that those in power are disconnected from the concerns of ordinary, tax-paying citizens. The government’s apparent refusal to challenge the ruling has only added fuel to that anger.

Once again, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has become a flashpoint in the national debate. This case is likely to strengthen calls for the UK to withdraw from or significantly reform the convention.

Many now argue that serious reform is essential, so the human-rights system can no longer be used by dangerous prisoners to weaken security measures, threaten prison staff, or extract large sums of taxpayer money while serving sentences for the most serious crimes.