Government 'misled MPs' over dropping death penalty opposition for Isis 'Beatles' militants, Dianne Abbott says

Diane Abbott says court evidence 'directly contradicts' statements to parliament

Alexanda Kotey and Shafee El Sheikh remain in custody in Syria, where local forces are calling for foreign fighters to be taken back by their countries of origin (Reuters)

Government ministers have been accused of misleading parliament on why the UK dropped its opposition to the death penalty for two Isis “Beatles” militants who could be tried in the US.

Diane Abbott said evidence that emerged in a legal challenge over the decision “directly contradicts” statements made by the home secretary and security minister as MPs voiced concerns.

“Written statements provided by the government to the High Court directly contradict statements and assurances made to parliament in July by Sajid Javid and Ben Wallace,” added Labour’s shadow home secretary.

“The government must urgently clarify why it failed to seek assurances over the death penalty from the US government. Our policies should not be bent to the whims of the US president.”

Earlier this year a leaked letter showed that Mr Javid had agreed to hand evidence on two Isis fighters to American authorities for a federal prosecution, but without the normal assurances that the death penalty would not be used.

The material relates to Shafee El Sheikh and Alexanda Kotey, who were allegedly members of a cell dubbed “The Beatles” that killed a series of hostages in Syria.

They have been the subject of a legal dispute between the US and UK since being captured in January, with senior members of Donald Trump’s administration pushing Britain to prosecute them.

But the government has stripped both men of their British citizenship and said the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute El Sheikh in Britain after reviewing 600 witness statements gathered by the Metropolitan Police.

Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons in July, Mr Wallace said: “We do not think we have the evidence here to try them in the United Kingdom and we hope that a trial will be carried out in the United States.”

The security minister said government policy allows the UK to give legal assistance to other countries without assurances that the death penalty will be used in exceptional cases, and that the same decision had been made before.

El Sheikh's mother, Maha Elgizouli, is attempting to launch a judicial review over the move and claims it is unlawful.

Her lawyers told the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, and Mr Justice Garnham that the “unprecedented and unjustified” decision was taken against advice from government departments and violated precedent.

Edward Fitzgerald QC said it was influenced by the “anticipated outrage” of members of the Trump administration if the UK demanded assurances that the pair would not face the death penalty.

“This country should not facilitate the imposition in another country of a punishment which we ourselves recognise as inhuman and unlawful,” he told the Administrative Court in London.

“[Mr Javid] took those steps in large part because of the anticipated outrage of certain political appointees in the Trump administration if the UK insisted on death penalty assurances.

“We submit that the anticipated outrage of those US officials was not a proper consideration as a matter of law.”

Mr Fitzgerald accused the home secretary of “giving up” on asking for assurances following a meeting with US attorney general Jeff Sessions in May, and performing an about-turn that was “both unreasonable and unlawful”.

Alexanda Amon Kotey, left, and El Shafee Elsheikh, who were allegedly among four British jihadis who made up a brutal Isis cell dubbed 'The Beatles' (AP)

The court heard that Mr Sessions had expressed indignation at the prospect of having his “hands tied” by the UK while it refused to prosecute the pair, and suggested they could be detained at Guantanamo Bay instead.

A briefing by the British ambassador in Washington warned that continued demands for a guarantee against execution prompted fears that senior members of Donald Trump’s administration would “wind the president up to complain to the prime minister and potentially, to hold a grudge” that could damage bilateral relations.

On Tuesday, lawyers representing the home secretary said it was not yet known whether Kotey and El Sheikh will be charged in the US, but that there is the “most powerful interest” in a proper investigation of their alleged crimes.

Originally from London, the pair were declared “specially designated global terrorists” by the US State Department ahead of their capture in January, with official documents naming them as members of “The Beatles” and saying the cell had beheaded more than 27 hostages and tortured many more.

Surviving captives have told of their brutality, which included waterboarding, electric shocks, mock executions and crucifixions.

Executioner Mohammed Emwazi, who became known as “Jihadi John”, was killed in a drone strike, while the remaining “Beatle”, Aine Davis, is imprisoned in Turkey.

James Eadie QC told the court that Kotey and El Sheikh’s alleged crimes are “at the apex of seriousness”.

“There is, for that reason alone, the most powerful interest in the proper investigation of those crimes and the most powerful interest in ensuring that, whatever options might be on the table, the option of releasing this individual back onto the battlefield to resume these activities is one thoroughly not to be desired,” he added.

Mr Eadie said there was no "hard-edged obligation" on the UK government to refuse to provide assistance to a "friendly foreign state" which has the death penalty.

He added that Mr Javid had considered this case with ”conspicuous care“ and "made a lawful decision to seek to assist the US investigation".

Judges will announce their decision on whether to grant permission for a judicial review on the decision at a later date.

Kotey and El Sheikh remain in custody in Syria, where hundreds of foreign fighters are being held by the Syrian Democratic Forces following advances through former Isis territories.

Kurdish leaders have called for the terrorists to be repatriated to their countries of origin, but the UK and other nations have been stripping Isis militants of citizenship and taking measures to prevent their return, and there are concerns that they could be freed if the stalemate continues.

Abdulkarim Omar, co-chair of the Foreign Relations Commission in North Syria, said there are currently around 900 Isis fighters, 500 women and more than 1,000 children from 44 countries in custody.

“Our region is unstable, any chaos may enable Isis fighters to flee,” he wrote on Twitter.

“We will not prosecute Isis fighters in our region [Rojava], every country should repatriate their citizens and prosecute them on their soil.”

Dr Omar said Kurdish leaders were trying to use diplomatic channels to hand the extremists to their home countries, but “if our efforts did not yield results, then we would take a new position, which would be announced in the appropriate time”.

Speaking at a security conference on Tuesday, Mr Wallace denied that the UK refuses to take back British Isis fighters and pointed at proposed laws that would make it illegal to travel to terror hotspots and other “designated areas”.

But he acknowledged that the return of ”foreign fighters“ is a ”genuine challenge“ because of the difficulties of gathering evidence about their activities overseas