A deputy governor tried to ban the media after he was accused of sexually assaulting a female student. On the same day she tried to prevent the media from covering her case, she tweeted in support of press freedom.
Imran Ahmed Khan, 48, a former MP for Wakefield, tried not to reveal key details of the case to the press, including the age of his victim, his homosexuality, and even his love of gin and tonic. . Khan revealed his confidentiality, which is unprecedented in a national security case, after two cases commissioned by media organizations.
Khan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy after a party in 2008. After his conviction, full details of how he tried to quell the case can now be revealed.
The victim was announced in 2019, a few days after Khan was elected, and gave police three videotaped interviews: two in December 2019 and one in February last year. During the second wave of the pandemic, the victim walked nearly 200 miles from home.
Khan was sent a questionnaire by Staffordshire Police before he was cautiously questioned at the station about the Covid protocols in force at the time, to which he answered in writing on 7 May 2020. Neither Staffordshire Police nor the Public Prosecution Office have informed the media. Or the public when Khan was accused of seizing mail, the point at which criminal suspects are usually named.
Her first video appearance in front of Westminster Magistrates Court on 3 June last year did not appear in public or on the press roster. Chief Justice Paul Goldspring gave MPs an interim injunction before the next unpublished hearing, which the PSC declined to confirm, and the charges against Khan.
On June 17 last year, on the day Khan argued in court that he would be granted anonymity, he resent a letter from then-Secretary of State Dominic Raab to Hong Kong about “press freedom”. Khan had previously spoken in the House of Commons against rioting attempts to “limit press freedom” after a protest group shut down the newspaper’s printing press.
His lawyers argued that, as a parliamentarian in office, there were concerns for his safety, and argued that he should not have been prosecuted in court as this would violate his right to life (Article 2), protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” (Article 3) and just . Privacy (Article 8) according to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The statement included statements by former British diplomat and intelligence officer Richard Barrett and former RAF Senior Officer Afzal Ashraf, a letter from MP Jim Shannon of the Democratic Unionist Party to a letter from the House of Commons, and publicly available information on Ahmed Muslims. But a risk assessment by West Yorkshire Police’s counter-terrorism security advisers concluded that “there was no objective threat to the life of the defendant as a result of being named as a defendant in these charges”.
Goldspring rejected Khan’s statement, noting that the MP’s first attempts to suppress media reports that the victim was a minor gave “an understanding of the accused’s real concerns”. He said, “Reputational damage is not the basis for taking orders, it is open justice and should remain the cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law.
Khan was allowed until 4 a.m. the following morning to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court before the order expired. However, Khan’s lawyers in return demanded that the decision be reconsidered at a hearing hurriedly called by Old Bailey Chief Justice Mark Lowcraft QC, where his name was listed as “IK”.
The judge told Khan that he had no jurisdiction to change the decision and would accept the Chief Justice, even if that were the case, meaning that the charges against Khan could be made public for the first time. Publicity prompted the second complainant – who alleged that Khan sexually assaulted her in Pakistan in 2010 – to appear.
Prosecutor Sean Larkin QC said that during the litigation it was a “minor technical matter”, and the MP was not charged with other offenses because it was outside the jurisdiction of the British legislator. On the first day of the trial, Khan’s name only appeared as a star on the Southwark Crown Court’s public list and another motion to limit coverage was launched, and reporters had no warning.
His lawyer, Goodrun Young QC, said the court had been notified a week earlier, but the judge and prosecutor said they were only notified a day before the trial. Khan said that both Ahmadi Muslims, the use of alcohol and homosexuality are strictly prohibited in his religion, and that reporting on these issues would expose him to his “safety both here and abroad.”
The “evidence” was published on more than 200 pages, including allegations that a bullet was found in his constituency in January 2020, and dozens of tweets, including an episode and a reference to the murders of Representatives Jo Cox and Sir David Amis. Supreme Court Justice Mr. Just Becker has issued a temporary injunction, which means that the attorney general’s office opening cannot be fully reported to give the media time to attend.
Direct access to the plaintiff’s main body of evidence was not possible, but the order was lifted at the end of the second day of the trial – when Khan was allowed to sit outside the dock because court microphones were not working – on instructions from the newspapers. A tip with an estimated cost of 4,000,000.
Source: Belfastlive
I’m Wayne Wickman, a professional journalist and author for Today Times Live. My specialty is covering global news and current events, offering readers a unique perspective on the world’s most pressing issues. I’m passionate about storytelling and helping people stay informed on the goings-on of our planet.
