“When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish” - Imran Aslam
Days Incarcerated
From 01 May 2010
Free Aslam
- Imran Aslam was sentenced to life in prison for a murder which the Police investigation concluded he had not committed.
- He was convicted solely on the Police interview (not statement) of a self-confessed liar and accomplice to two murders, in the absence of absolutely no forensics or supporting evidence.
- Over £20 million pounds was spent on a sub-standard investigation, which resulted in one unsolved murder and one man being wrongfully convicted.
- This was an investigation littered with both manipulated and withheld evidence.
Imran Aslam was sentenced in 2011 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years. Now 38 years old, he has spent the last 11 years in prison, because he refuses to admit guilt for a crime he is innocent of and did not commit.
The Police
In this case, the Police were especially keen to secure convictions in order to cover up their own failures on that fatal night. Numerous calls to the Police were made by independent witnesses, reporting street fights taking place, yet no Police units attended.
In the aftermath, there was an enormous amount of media pressure on the Police, to explain their failure to attend. This is the reason for their eagerness to obtain convictions.
Aslam has never denied being at the scene earlier in the evening. However, Aslam was not present at the subsequent scene later on, whereby the incident occurred. Aslam was not involved in any of the violence; a fact confirmed by CCTV footage, which captured an earlier event.
The Witness
This case hangs on the reliability of just one witness – Mohammad Zak Uddin. He had lengthy interviews with the Police, with transcripts running up to 442 pages. The original copy of this statement is now available in the Downloads tab, on this site.
If what Zak Uddin had said in his interview was true, why has he continuously refused to sign the statement prepared by the Police?
In summary, Zak Uddin handed himself into the Police two days after the murders took place, and was arrested and cautioned. Over a course of two days, Uddin gave an account to the Police, whereby he claimed to have played no part in the night's events, but had seen others who had.
Uddin stated that he had witnessed two people stab Hayder Ali - the first being Hassan Mir, in whose hand he positively identified the murder weapon. He then claimed to have witnessed Aslam stab the victim in the back, whilst he was unconscious on the floor.
Zak Uddin was released on bail, then re-interviewed in June 2006. In this interview, the Police disclosed CCTV footage images to Uddin, where he was seen to be holding a weapon in his hand, something he had failed to mention in any of his previous interviews. Despite this, no further action was taken against him.
Zak Uddin was used as the only witness against Aslam, and his testimony was never used against any of the other defendants. This itself highlights there is an obvious flaw in this case. The flaw becomes even more apparent, considering during one of the appeals, the Prosecution specifically stated at the time that there were no viable witnesses.
The following occurred at the appeal hearing of Hassan Mir and others in 2009: the court overturned all six convictions and the Prosecution requested a re-trial. The main court of appeal Judge, Lord Justice Hooper, asked the prosecutor whether he had any additional witnesses, since the court had ruled all the original witnesses to be tainted. The Prosecution stated that there were no other witnesses.
If Zak Uddin was a reliable witness, why did the Prosecution not present him as a witness at that point?
During the retrial in 2009/2010, the Prosecution offered Plea Bargains to all the remaining defendant's. Hassan Mir and Usman Butt plead guilty to the murder of Hayder Ali as secondary parties, meaning they were not the ones to strike the fatal blow, but were part of the group which was involved. By accepting the plea bargain of Hassan Mir, the Prosecution clearly did not accept Zak Uddin's claim that Hassan Mir had stabbed Hayder Ali. As a result, the two appellants, who like Aslam, had no forensic evidence against them, were immediately released. In February 2010 the last defendant pleaded guilty to GBH with intent and was released, having already served his sentence.
In May 2010, Aslam returned to the United Kingdom voluntarily, and was arrested at Heathrow Airport; he was later charged with two counts of murder. A month later the Prosecution indicated that they would be relying on the interview version of Zak Uddin's testimony. Although Uddin was disregarded as a reliable witness against the other defendants in this case, he was now being used as a credible witness against Aslam, irrespective of there being no evidence to support his claims. Essentially, the Prosecution hand-picked parts of the claims made by an unreliable witness, and used this as the sole basis for convicting an innocent man.
What evidence/information had come to light between February 2010 to May 2010, that now made Zak Uddin a reliable witness against Imran Aslam, but not a reliable witness against any of the other defendants?
The Court of Appeal attempted to address this critical issue, subsequently stating, the Prosecution had provided an explanation for why Zak Uddin had not been used previously. However, we have never seen any evidence of this explanation.
In addition, the Judge at Aslam’s appeal, Lord Justice Hooper, was the same Judge who had overturned the convictions of other defendants in 2009. Lord Justice Hooper had then been told explicitly that there were no further reliable witnesses. Lord Justice Hooper should have questioned the Prosecution, on why Zak Uddin's claims against Aslam were suddenly admissible.
For legal reasons, we cannot mention evidence that has now come to light, which reveals that Zak Uddin was much more heavily involved in the night's events. In addition, we also now have new forensic evidence, that confirms his version of events to be inconsistent.
Due to current circumstances, we are unable to provide more information as of yet. Further information will be revealed in due course.
The Trial Judge
When Aslam was convicted, the media outlets reported that his conviction was based on having supplied knives used in the attacks. This assumption was made solely due to the fact the Aslam family were in the trade of Butchery. In fact, the knives used in the attacks were not just types used in the trade of Butchery, but also available for purchase by the wider public.
Aslam was acquitted unanimously of the first charge, for the murder of Mohammad Ali, and this unanimous verdict clearly indicated that the Jury did not accept that he had supplied the knives. However, in his sentencing remarks, the Judge stated that he was satisfied that Aslam had supplied the knives. This casts doubt on the Judge's impartiality, because the sole evidence for his conviction was actually the word of a self-confessed liar.