�
|
Justice for Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque - the Belgium Two Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque, are currently in HMP Dovegate, serving 12yrs each for the importation of drugs a crime they did not commit. The story of the Belgium 2 is a long and complex one which resulted in two people being sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each, so what is this horrific crime that warranted these people losing their liberty for such a long period of time? According to both Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque (who prior to the events had never met), their objective was to import designer clothing into the UK, according to their charge sheet they were conspiring to import �3.2 million worth of class A and class B drugs into the UK. So where could such a discrepancy between intent and 'actuality' have arisen. Because both Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque are Innocent. * Peter Hannigan was asked to supply a vehicle for the importation of some clothing from Belgium, the clothing was not immediately available when it arrived in Belgium and so it was deemed prudent to leave the vehicle their and for the driver to return to the UK (the consignment would not be ready for over a week). * Ihsan Ulhaque was to drive the vehicle from its loading point to a point where the original driver could collect it and drive it back to the UK. * When Mr. Ulhaque went to collect the vehicle he noticed a Police presence around it. * When the Original driver, accompanied by Mr. Hannigan discovered that Mr. Ulhaque had not delivered the vehicle, they went to the loading point and found a distraught Mr. Ulhaque saying that something strange was occurring and that the Police were watching the vehicle. * Without further question, all three people decided that things were not what they seemed to be and arranged to fly back to the UK. * They were then each charged just over two weeks later with conspiring to import class A and class B drugs into the UK. What the above story does not tell is what we have since learned happened whilst both Mr. Hannigan and the driver were in the UK awaiting notification that the consignment of clothing was now ready. * At some stage between 18th February 2000 and the 28th February 2000, persons unknown placed over �3 million worth of drugs into the van that was parked on a hotel car park. * The Belgian police were informed at 9:30 in the mornining of the 28th February 2000, that a van which had been parked in the hotel carpark for a number of days had been broken into as the side door was now ajar ... the informants were a hotel worker and the hotel manager. * According to the above mentioned hotel employees the police arrived at the scene less than half an hour later. * According to the Belgian police, they arrived THREE HOURS later. * According to the hotel employees, the van was parked in the position it had occupied for over a week. * According to the Belgian police, the vehicle was parked some 30 metres away with its front bumper touching a crash barrier seperating the car park from a busy motorway. * According to the hotel staff, such a crash barrier does not and has not existed for at least 20 years. * The Belgian police observed an English registered vehicle approaching the van, its driver was later identified as a Portugese national who had a criminal record for the importation/exportation of drugs ... they failed to ever even question this man. * Did not take any fingerprints from the van. * Did not take any photographs of the van whilst it was en situ. * Did not make any notes or logs relating to their observations whilst the vehicle was under surveilance. When Mr. Hannigan and the driver discovered from Mr. Ulhaque that the vehicle was being watched, they immediatley made arrangements to leave Belgium, unfortunately they could not get a flight until the following day (29th February 2000), so they booked into the hotel and arranged to go to another hotel for a meal and some drinks (strange actions for drugs barons). During the trial, the prosecution was hellbent on proving that Mr. Hannigan and the driver were observing the van themselves (possibley with a view to making a run for it?) ... so how did the prosecution go about this ... * Mr Hannigan stated that he and the driver were together at all times that evening. * The Belgian police claim that the driver was seen in the vicinity of the van (one officer claimed that this was at 9:00 PM whilst another claimed it was at 9:45 PM) * The prosecution produced an itemised mobile phone log which showed that Mr. Hannigan had telephoned the driver during the period when they were allegedly together in the bar ... therefore they cannot have been together at all times. * The prosecution stated that Mr. Hannigan and the driver actually left the bar where they were having a drink at 9:14, they produced a credit card receipt to prove that Mr. Hannigan closed his account at the bar at 9:14 PM. * Mr. Hannigan could offer no explaination at the trial why on earth the credit card receipt should state 9:14 when in actuality they left at 8:28PM. ... Mr. Hannigans credibility was seriously undermimed on this point. * It later transpired after the trial that the hotel bar take all credit card receipts that state payment of a gratuity and put them to one side, then when the bar is quiet, they will process all the credit cards at once ... in this case, Mr. Hannigan and the driver did close their account at 8:27, they offered a gratuity to the barstaff, the barstaff processed this at 9:14 over 45 minutes after Mr. Hannigan and the driver had left the bar. The above points are just a snapshot of some of the many many inconsistencies that lead to the imprisonment of Peter Hannigan and Ihsan Ulhaque ... Please write to them both. Peter Hannigan Ihsan Ulhaque |