A judge has issued a warrant for the arrest of the older brother of the Manchester Arena bomber after he refused to give evidence to the inquiry into the bombing and fled the country.
The district judge said he was satisfied that Ismail Abedi, 28 – who now calls himself Ishmale ben Romdhan – was aware of the hearing and had been given the opportunity to attend.
Abedi, an IT worker, left his flat in Manchester last August and is now thought to be with his parents and three youngest siblings in Libya.
A final tannoy was made at Manchester Magistrates Court on Tuesday to check he was not in the building.
Salman Abedi blew himself up at the Arena in May 2017 killing 22 men, women and children. His younger brother Hashem, 24, who was extradited from Libya, is serving life for helping him make the bomb.
The inquiry wanted to question Ismail because his DNA was found on a hammer in a Nissan Micra car that was used by his two younger brothers to transport and store the explosive they had manufactured.
The victims’ families also wanted to question him about his brothers’ radicalisation, particularly because Islamic State propaganda was found on Ismail’s phone when he returned from his honeymoon, 20 months before the bombing.
British Airways selling new tickets for short-haul flights from Heathrow – as European airport extends capacity cap
COVID and social media pressures driving surge in mental health problems, say doctors
‘We will fight to the end’: Archie Battersbee’s parents to appeal decision to end life-support treatment
Abedi was arrested by police the day after the attack and questioned for 14 days before he was released without charge.
By the time of the attack he had moved out of the family home and he told police that he had called his parents and asked them to take the brothers back to Libya because he was concerned they had dropped out of education.
On August 28 last year, he was the subject of a schedule seven stop under the Terrorism Act 2000 at Manchester Airport but told police that he would be returning to the country in mid September.
He missed his flight but returned to Manchester Airport the next day and left the country.
At a hearing last month, Ismail was found guilty, in his absence, of refusing to comply with a section 21 notice under the Inquiries Act 2005.
Sophie Cartwright QC, prosecuting, said a notice of the hearing on Tuesday had been sent to him at his last known address, telling him he had been found guilty, in his absence, of an offence under section 35 of the Inquiries Act.
“He was separately emailed notice of today’s hearing. We would submit there is adequate notice of this hearing and we would submit that he has not attended today.
“As a result, we would submit that this is an offence which carries imprisonment and you do have the power to issue a warrant.”
District Judge Jack McGarva told the hearing: “Not only has he been emailed but there has been a great deal of publicity. I am sure he will have followed what has happened in this court.
“I would have issued the warrant at the last hearing but the Magistrates Court Act did not allow me to do this. I am now allowed to issue a warrant and do so under section 13 of the act.”
The judge told the hearing last month that he was prevented from imposing a prison sentence, in the absence of the defendant, where the case had been started by a summons.
But he said there was an interest in making sure others in similar situations attend and meet their obligations and a warrant would allow Interpol to post a “wanted” notice.
“If he crosses any of the countries we cooperate with, he will make his way [here],” the judge added.
Nick de la Poer QC told the hearing that Abedi had “prevaricated and obfuscated”, adding: “He has thrown up every obstacle he could think of, and when those failed he fled the jurisdiction.”
The families of the victims questioned whether Ismail will ever be caught and accused him of “truly despicable contempt”.
Kim Harrison, a solicitor at Slater and Gordon, who represents 11 of the victims’ families, said: “Whilst we welcome the conviction of Ismail Abedi today we remain sorely disappointed that the conviction had to take place in his absence.
“We remain gravely concerned as to how Abedi was able to leave the country before giving evidence to the inquiry in the first place.
“His leaving the country should never have happened and despite the conviction he is unlikely to face any real justice until he is apprehended, if at all.
“The families deserve to know the truth about what happened that night and the contempt Ismail Abedi has shown them is truly despicable.”
