Why did the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood not block the release of Britain’s most dangerous jihadi terrorist?
On Tuesday I revealed Mohammed Shahjahan had been released from prison.
He plotted to blow up the London Stock Exchange and carry out a marauding gun and bomb attack, modelled on one in Mumbai.
One of his jihadi mates was Usman Khan, the Islamist who claimed to be rehabilitated but went on to commit the fishmonger’s hall terror attack.
Patrick Christys says the Justice Secretary might have stood by as the Jihadi was released
|
GB NEWS
GB News has come into possession of Parole Board’s official documents concerning the release of Shahjahan and there is a very revealing line in here:
‘The Secretary of State (Shabana Mahmood) elected not to be represented at the parole hearing on 21st May 2025’.
That dangerous jihadi lunatic was released days later.
Do you think that Islamist can be deradicalised? Because I don’t.
Here is what a spokesperson for the Justice Secretary told us about this case: “This decision was made by the independent Parole Board.
“A view opposing release was entered by the Lord Chancellor in September 2024. After thorough consideration of the Parole Board’s decision, it was concluded there was no legal basis to ask for reconsideration.”
So she gave up?
She sent a representative in September and then didn’t bother to turn up for the following hearing?
Mohammed Shahjahan was freed after the Parole Board approved his release | GB NEWS
This meant there was literally NOBODY in the room to make the case that this is a dangerous fanatic, intent on mass murder in the name of Allah, whose mates have gone on to commit terror attacks.
And we know there was nobody in the room to oppose his release because…let’s bring that document up again.
It says: All witnesses in the oral hearing supported Mr Shahjahan’s release and did not consider there would be any more evidence in terms of risk.”
This bloke was allowed out in 2019 and recalled for breaching his licence conditions. He wanted to set up a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. He wanted to attack pub in Stoke.
Shabana Mahmood’s own office told us that she has the power to appeal the decision if she feels it is irrational. In the legal sense that means an action that is so illogical, unreasonable, or outrageous that no sensible person could have reached it.
What do you think? I reckon you think this is irrational.
Today our own Home Secretary argued that the rights of asylum seekers trump the right of the British public.
And now it looks like we have a Justice Secretary who hasn’t done absolutely everything within her power to keep a dangerous jihadi off our streets.
Whose side are these people on?
