London Stock Exchange bomb plotter was allowed to stay in UK

A terrorist denied asylum was granted leave to remain in Britain on human rights grounds, a court ruling reveals

Shah Rahman was denied asylum in the UK but is still in the country
A convicted terrorist who was jailed for threatening to blow up the London Stock Exchange was denied asylum but later granted leave to remain in Britain.

Shah Rahman was one of four al-Qaeda-inspired extremists who were jailed in 2012 over a plot to bomb the stock exchange and was later recalled to prison for breaches of his licence.

Now, a judgment in an immigration case relating to his wife has revealed that Rahman, a Bangladeshi national, applied unsuccessfully for asylum but has been permitted to remain in the UK anyway.

While released on licence in June 2019, Rahman married Parveen Purbhoo, a Mauritian citizen, in an Islamic ceremony in London while she was visiting the UK.

Purbhoo, and her relation to Rahman, can be identified for the first time after legal restrictions were lifted. She has been permanently excluded from Britain after Isis-related imagery was found on her phone at Heathrow.

The judgment in the case revealed that Rahman applied for asylum in 2017, the same year he was first released on licence.

However, his claim was turned down under Article 51 of the Refugee Convention, which states that individuals guilty of “war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorist acts or other serious criminal offences” can be denied refugee status.

Despite his asylum claim failing, he was permitted to remain in Britain. The judgment states: “He was granted restricted leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis that he could not be removed to Bangladesh without breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.”

Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention provides an absolute right of protection from torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Purbhoo and Rahman were married at East London Mosque in June 2019. After this, she applied for entry clearance to the UK, which was initially denied but granted after she applied a second time.

In a submission to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac), she said that she returned to the UK in February 2020 but went back to Mauritius in March because of the pandemic.

In August 2021 she attempted to join Rahman in the UK to formalise their wedding in a civil ceremony. This time she was not required to apply for a visa as Mauritians could travel to the UK using only an electronic travel authorisation.

However, when she arrived at Heathrow, immigration officers searched her phone and found Isis-related material, including videos of soldiers and Jihadist propaganda.
Isis-related videos were found on a mobile phoneMedyan Dairieh/Alamy
A police report presented to the court found: “She appeared very blasé about having them on her mobile. She could not remember where or how they got there. She admitted that she wanted to learn more about it and what it was and about the atrocities.”

Nonetheless, she was permitted to enter the UK and lived with Rahman until he was arrested in February 2022. He was recalled to prison and convicted for failing to notify the probation service of a mobile phone, email address and bank account.

The judgment said: “Mr Rahman accepted before the parole board that he would use the illicit mobile phone to contact the applicant. In his witness statement in these proceedings, he accepts that he used the phone to have private video calls with her.”

A forensic psychology report by the parole board also found Purbhoo was “complicit in the breaches for which Mr Rahman was convicted”.

In 2023 a review of Purbhoo’s case was presented to Suella Braverman, then the home secretary, who permanently excluded her from the UK. In a verdict published on Monday, Purbhoo was denied the right to appeal against her exclusion.

Mrs Justice Farbey, Mark Ockelton and Roger Golland found: “The applicant was complicit in Mr Rahman’s unlawful breach of notification requirements; and she has not provided either the police or SIAC with an explanation of how Islamist material came to be on her phone. Her willingness to place her own interests over and above legal or administrative processes is troubling and risky.”

Siac’s judgment found that she had been “reasonably assessed as a national security risk” and the decision to exclude her had been proportionate.