Video: Failed Dewsbury EDL bombers lose appeal on jail terms

SIX Islamic extremists who plotted a bloody attack on an English Defence League rally in a West Yorkshire town have failed in a bid to challenge the length of their sentences.
Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, (bottom row left to right) Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Hasseen, Omar Khan.Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, (bottom row left to right) Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Hasseen, Omar Khan.
Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, (bottom row left to right) Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Hasseen, Omar Khan.

Their applications were thrown out today by three judges at the Court of Appeal in London.

Jewel Uddin, Omar Mohammed Khan, Mohammed Hasseen, Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Saud and Zohaib Ahmed, all in their 20s from the West Midlands, were jailed at the Old Bailey in June last year after earlier admitting planning the attack.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Khan, Uddin and Ahmed were jailed for 19 and a half years with an extended licence period of five years, and the other three were given jail terms of 18 years and nine months and an extended licence period of five years.

Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, (bottom row left to right) Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Hasseen, Omar Khan.Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, (bottom row left to right) Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Hasseen, Omar Khan.
Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, (bottom row left to right) Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Hasseen, Omar Khan.

All of the men except Hasseen travelled to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, where an EDL rally was taking place in June 2012.

They had an arsenal of weapons including two shotguns, swords, knives, a nail bomb containing 458 pieces of shrapnel, and a partially-assembled pipe bomb.

The plan only failed because the event finished earlier than expected - they arrived at around 4pm when it was over shortly after 2pm.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lady Justice Rafferty, Mr Justice Burnett and Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing heard a number of submissions from their lawyers, including a claim that the custodial terms were “manifestly excessive”.

But the court rejected all of the grounds raised on their behalf.