Court accepts bid to reinstate new charges against Stamford Hill assault suspect
Charges of racially or religiously aggravated assault had been dropped as part of a plea deal with Abdullah Qureshi
A court has agreed to reinstate charges of racially aggravated hate against a man suspected of attacking five strictly-Orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill.
Abdullah Qureshi, 28, from Dewsbury in West Yorkshire, has already pleaded guilty to one count of assault by beating and one count of grievous bodily harm with intent.
Charges relating to racially or religiously aggravated assault were dropped as part of a plea deal with him.
But the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said it had joined other Jewish community organisations, including Shomrim and CST, in urging prosecutors to reverse the plea deal.
The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed it had applied to reinstate three further charges against Qureshi and that Stratford Magistrates’ Court accepted the request on Thursday.
A report by CAA quote prosecutors as saying there were “serious allegations” against Qureshi and that “the file was reviewed again and a decision was made to proceed with the offences.”
Lawyers representing Abdullah Qureshi argued this submission should not be accepted, describing it as “ridiculous” and an “abuse of process”.
There will now be a plea hearing later this month at Thames Magistrates’ Court.
All the charges come after five incidents on 18 August last year involving members of the Jewish community were reported to police in the Stamford Hill area.
The Crown Prosecution Service told Jewish News: “We have been successful in applying to the court to reinstate the racially aggravated element of two charges against Abdullah Qureshi. We have also added a further racially aggravated charge.
“He will appear at Thames Magistrates’ Court on 25 August.
“We would like to remind everyone that criminal proceedings against Qureshi are active and that he has a right to a fair trial.
“It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
comments