First hearing in Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light case

On 22 October, the Chester Magistrates Court heard arguments on behalf of 7 members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light (AROPL) who asked the Court to lift temporary Orders which are currently restricting their movements.

AROPL is a peaceful new religion, derived from Islamic principles. In April of this year, its premises in Crewe where around 100 people including children lived and a further 150 people worshipped, was raided by 500 police officers in an unprecedented action against a religious organisation. 13 people were arrested for serious offences (with 3 arrested later), and all vehemently deny any involvement. One of those has been released with no further action being taken as they did not come to the UK until two years after the offences were alleged to have been committed.

No one has been charged with any of the offences, but 7 of those arrested have also been subject to interim Slavery and Trafficking Risk Orders which severely restrict their movements. The Court was asked by Cheshire Police to continue interim orders to allow the police more time to investigate.

Mr Danny Friedman KC, Counsel on behalf of Abdullah Hashem, the leader of the religion, told the Court that it would not be just for the Orders to be continued. He explained that the raid took place following allegations made by one woman whose account is inconsistent and unreliable, and who, prior to making the allegations, had been in contact with journalists and a well-known opponent of the religion who has made violent threats against the religion. A recording of the threats was played to the Court.

Mr Friedman also read to the Court extracts from phone conversations between the complainant and one of the accused which he described as a ‘red light’ for her credibility, points that the police accepted needed to be investigated. It has also now been discovered, Mr Friedman told the Court, that the complainant has fictionalised her account using AI and published it to seek engagement and ultimately to commercialise her story. Mr Friedman also described how one man who infiltrated AROPL for 9 months at the request of AROPL’s opponents failed to find any wrongdoing at the religion’s headquarters where he regularly visited.

Mr Gary Bell KC on behalf of the other 6 people subject to the Orders asked the police officer questions about the evidence of the complainant who claimed in interviews to have seen aliens, and automatic weapons, UFO’s, and fairies at the religion’s premises and told the religion had access to nuclear weapons. The officer agreed that none of these allegations were supported by what was found at AROPL’s premises and that none of the 100 or so people who had been living there had made any complaints to the police. He characterised the complainant’s accusation of forced labour as being ‘asked to do her fair share of tidying up’ in the housing provided to her when she visited the community.

Counsel for Cheshire Police, which requested that the interim Orders continue, argued that there was further evidence of other potential wrongdoing which required investigation. The Senior Investigating Officer in the case referred to what she said was concerning evidence, much of it apparently obtained from anonymous internet sources. She added that the complainant’s account was not untypical of victims’ accounts, that it was a complex investigation where information was still emerging and that the Orders were proportionate to the ongoing risk to the public. It was argued that where the allegations were serious and the investigation was complex and incomplete, it would be appropriate to continue the restrictions.

Mr Friedman contextualised this by describing an internet ‘echo chamber’ in which individuals who oppose AROPL for religious or political reasons repeat hearsay and publish ever more serious allegations until they are believed by online commentators and journalists. He said this is in effect double anonymous hearsay.

He told the Judge that, in light of the flaws in the complainant’s account, these are unlikely allegations which require cogent evidence before stringent restrictions are placed on those accused before any charges have been brought. In Mr Hashem’s case, the Order prevents him from being at his home, the centre of worship, and from being among his own family.

The Judge ultimately decided that the temporary Orders should continue for a further 6 months, while emphasising that no factual findings had been made against those subject to the Orders, and that there is a low threshold for such Orders.

The police asked the Court to make an order preventing reporting of the hearing, which has now been lifted (subject to ongoing restrictions on naming other individuals not party to the proceedings).

Mr Hashem said:

I have always denied these terrible accusations which are untrue. While I am disappointed that unfair restrictions remain in place for now, I believe that the police will soon realise that there is simply no credible evidence, and we will be able to worship freely again. We are a peaceful transparent religion, and the believers are shocked and distressed at the way they have been treated.

Mr Friedman is instructed by Katie Wheatley at Bindmans for Abdullah Hashem.