British officials admit doubts over chemical plot

Counter-terrorism officials conceded that lethal chemical devices they feared had been stored at an east London house raided on June 2 may never have existed. Confidence among officials appeared to be waning as searches at the address continued to yield no evidence of a plot for an attack with cyanide or other chemicals. A man was shot during the raid, adding to pressure on the authorities for answers about the accuracy of the intelligence that led them to send 250 officers to storm the man's family home at dawn. Officials are not yet prepared to admit the intelligence was wrong. But there is diminishing optimism that it will be shown to wholly or even partially correct. Speaking of the feared chemical devices, one official said: "They might be elsewhere or never existed." The raid was launched after MI5 received intelligence from an informant of the existence of a viable chemical device at the property, which was allegedly to be used in an attack in Britain with the potential for substantial loss of life. During the raid a 23-year-old Muslim man was shot, and he and his brother were arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Scotland Yard said that searches at the property would continue for several days. Sources with responsibility for the security of the transport system, one of the most likely targets of a chemical device, say they have not been made aware the searches have produced any trace of a chemical device, either at the address in east London or elsewhere. "So far nothing from the search bears out the intelligence," said one source. Over the weekend police intensified their planning for dealing with community anger if it turns out the intelligence was wrong. Security and intelligence officials defended the decision to raid the house: "We have a duty of care to the general public, we can't do [police anti-terrorist] operations by halves," said one official. A senior police source explained: "The public may have to get used to this sort of incident, with the police having to be safe rather than sorry." Anti-terrorism police began questioning the man shot in the raid, after his release from hospital. His lawyer named him as Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, who with his brother Abul Koyair, 20, protest their innocence and deny any link to Islamist extremism. Koyair's solicitor, Julian Young, denied media reports that his client had any criminal convictions. Lawyers for the men also denied a report that Kahar had been shot by his brother after grappling with an armed police officer for his gun. Young added: "My client denies that he struggled and caused his brother to be shot. He knows nothing about cyanide or suicide belts or jackets or explosives or bombs or firearms. "He is angry that this has happened to him but pleased police are doing their job. He denies the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It is contrary to all his beliefs." Kahar's solicitor, Kate Roxburgh, claimed that police had failed to give a warning before opening fire on her client. She said: "He was woken up... by screams from downstairs, got out of bed in his pajamas obviously unarmed, nothing in his hands and hurrying down the stairs. As he came toward a bend in the stairway, not knowing what was going on downstairs, the police turned the bend up towards him and shot him–and that was without any warning." She said: "He wasn't asked to freeze, given any warning and didn't know the people in his house were police officers until after he was shot. He is lucky still to be alive." Roxburgh added: "He is absolutely horrified and completely bewildered about how the police have come to this. He has had no involvement in this whatsoever." Roxburgh said Kahar had grabbed the gun after he was shot fearing it would be fired again, leaving him with a burn to his hand from the hot barrel.