9/11 accused can seek compensation

The Court of Appeal said Lotfi Raissi should be allowed to claim damages, overturning a previous decision which said he was not entitled to a cash hand-out.

The latest judgment - which was highly critical of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - found the 33-year-old from Chiswick, west London had been subjected to an "abuse of process".

Minor charges unconnected with terrorism were used to mount an extradition process with an "ulterior purpose", the judges said. Police and the CPS used the proceedings to circumvent laws which prevented suspects being kept in custody longer than seven days, they added.

Mr Raissi was qualified to fly Boeing 737 jets and was just 27 at the time of his arrest, so compensation based on lost earnings for the rest of his career alone could run to between £2 million and £3 million.

Speaking outside court Mr Raissi said: "I wept with relief when I heard the judgment. I have always said that I believed in British justice and I finally got it today. Surely I can expect to hear from the Home Secretary with the long-awaited apology very soon."

His solicitor Jules Carey said: "(The) judgment should not only cause the Home Secretary to review the use of provisional extradition warrants, but it should also cause the police and the CPS to fundamentally overhaul their systems and procedures to avoid such a serious miscarriage of justice happening again." He added the judgment had "completely exonerated" his client of allegations of terrorism.

Mr Raissi was arrested at his home near Heathrow airport 10 days after the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. He was imprisoned at Belmarsh high security jail for four-and-a-half months, but was finally released after no evidence was put before a court to support the terrorism allegations.

The Home Secretary rejected Mr Raissi's application for compensation - a decision which was upheld on appeal.

The High Court said Mr Raissi had been held in extradition proceedings which were not "in the domestic criminal process" and therefore did not fall within the compensation scheme. But the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling and ordered the Home Office to look again at his claim.