British Justice Pays Well

"... we have a double murderer, who took a prison officer hostage, refused to associate with other prisoners, became depressed, sued the government, won, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab."

Oh, the British public’s devotion to its national institutions is truly the stuff of fairy tales—just a nonstop lovefest for these paragons of virtue, whose every action is a masterclass in wisdom, transparency, and unadulterated brilliance. 

Honestly, it’s a wonder people aren’t camped outside Parliament with bouquets and thank-you cards, eager for a glimpse of these untouchable icons of public service. The suggestion of a 'pre-revolutionary state' is obviously just the fever dream of malcontents who can’t handle living in a society where the only thing more flawless than the system is the haloed leadership running it. 

If you sense any unrest, don’t worry—it’s probably just a national allergy to perfection.

Joking aside, the saga I’m about to tell lays bare the depth of the rot. A rot often hidden behind legalese, process and flannel. So, grab a coffee, sit down (just in case you fall over in shock), and hear the tale of Fuad Awale.

In 2011, Awale, a Somali drug trafficker, walked up to two teenagers in Milton Keynes, held a gun to their heads, and carried out an execution. 

“Execution” is the term used by the judge presiding over the case. In January 2013, Awale was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 38 years.

In May 2013, while serving his sentence at Full Sutton Prison, Awale and others took a prison officer hostage for five hours, threatening to kill him. They demanded that Britain release the radical cleric Abu Qatada. Awale pinned the officer to a chair, held a makeshift knife to his throat, and said: “Stop struggling, I’ve killed two people – I’ll kill you.” Awale was sentenced to a further six years for this offence.

Due to the danger Awale posed to staff, he was placed under close supervision - the so-called Rule 45 regime. By then, he was expressing extremist Islamic beliefs and declaring himself a jihadist. These beliefs, together with his actions, made him one of the most threatening prisoners in the system.

Under Rule 45, a prison governor may authorise, in writing, a period of removal from association of up to 14 days. The Secretary of State may grant removal from association for a maximum period of 42 days and may renew such leave for subsequent periods of up to 42 days.

Between 2019 and 2023, Awale spent long periods in solitary confinement. He was offered opportunities to socialise with other prisoners (playdates, if you like), but declined some, claiming he feared for his safety. Yet the record shows that Awale was a danger to other prisoners and staff. 

In July 2019, Awale attacked another prisoner during association. He claims he made a pre-emptive strike in self-defence. 

After this, Awale faced rotation through various high-security prisons. Throughout 2020, he remained at HMP Manchester, spending most of the day out of his cell and engaging with staff. However, in January 2021, he attacked and punched a prison officer in the face. 

Following concerns that he had been inciting prisoners to harm staff, on 26 March 2021, he moved to HMP Long Lartin, where he began to settle down. As the prison service struggled to find prisoners for Awale to associate with, he eventually landed at HMP Woodhill. Still seen as a danger, he was subject to a four-officer unlock with body-worn cameras in operation.

With effect from 15 December 2021, Awale entered an association group with prisoner LF, which permitted association outside their cells. They developed a good relationship. Then LF moved prisons. 

The prison service assessed that only 13 potential associations existed for Awale across the entire estate, assuming Awale would associate with them. 

Over time, Awale claims to have developed depression. His lawyers then took the government to court, arguing that the depression resulted from procedural failures, rights infringements and the presence of racist and Islamophobic gangs in the prison system. No shit, Sherlock. Who knew the prison was full of nasty people? 

In 2024, in a High Court judgment, Awale won his case. The judge found breaches of procedural rules, common law fairness, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the ECHR protects the fundamental right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. 

I kinda assumed that when you went to jail for a double murder and then held a prison officer hostage, threatening his life, you’d forfeited these rights. Moreover, repeated attacks on staff and prisoners made you ineligible for these rights—silly me.

In December 2025, Justice Secretary David Lammy revealed that Awale was awarded £7,500 in compensation and £234,000 in legal costs, to be paid by the taxpayer. 

In short, we have a murderer who took a prison officer hostage, refused to associate with other prisoners, became depressed, sued the government, won, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Along the way, the lawyers make a tidy sum.

Regarding the lawyers, Matrix Chambers represented Awale. Cherie Blair helped found these chambers—recall her? She’s married to former Labour PM Tony Blair. 

Dan Squires KC of Matrix Chambers appeared for Awale, and Sarah Hannett, also of Matrix Chambers, represented the government. Squires is married to the current Labour Minister for Courts, Sarah Sackman KC, MP. It's a small world. I’m sure this is all normal and above board. 

Also, just for the record, Sackman’s boss is Justice Secretary David Lammy, who authorised the payment. 

Oh, and guess what? The court, in its infinite wisdom, discovered all sorts of procedural failures—like not properly reviewing Awale's isolation or pondering the subtle effects of racism in a prison system that’s clearly running like a well-oiled machine (if the oil is, say, molasses). 

Shocking, right? I mean, who could have ever anticipated that a system teetering on the brink of collapse might drop the ball? And of course, Labour, always up for a bold move, decided that the best way to fix things was to throw open the doors and release a bunch of prisoners—including, just for good measure, sex offenders. Because what could possibly go wrong with that?

The ruling and payout drew intense criticism from many quarters, including opposition politicians, who labelled it a "sick joke" and called for emergency legislation to overturn such judgments. 

Oh, absolutely—legal commentators have noted that the judgment is brimming with common sense (if you live on another planet) and that the judge, far from being lost in a maze of self-important mental gymnastics, was simply delivering the kind of brilliant, real-world insight we’ve come to expect from the bench. Truly, hats off.

Naturally, the icing on the cake is last month’s Labour PM, Kier Starmer, rolling out the red carpet for an Islamic extremist who, ever so charmingly, referred to British people as “dogs and monkeys” and called for Jews to be killed. Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? 

Clearly, Kier just can’t catch a single break—what with sending Jeffrey Epstein’s BFF off to represent Britain in Washington (because who better?), and then, for good measure, losing his deputy PM thanks to some totally-not-shady property deals. It’s almost as if there’s a secret competition for the most questionable decision.  

Who could imagine why the average person might have any issues with our politicians or the legal system? I mean, it's only a flawless system that showers rewards on the deserving (read: the worst of the worst), while the rest of us just get the privilege of footing the bill.

Truly, what a dream.