Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Why do you guys object to this? The Court said that all the other beardies could go, but this guy has mental health issues, supported by medical evidence. I'm not a doctor. Are you guys doctors? Have you examined this bloke and found that he is OK to be extradited? Some doctors have examined the bloke, currently held in Broadmoor (that may give a clue as to his condition), and concluded the opposite. A court has thought about all the evidence, and made a decision. Why is that such a big deal?
That alleged computer hacker bloke isn't going to the US, either, and that decision wasn't even made by a court, but not that many people seem very upset about that.
Other threads claim that we are too soft on extradition to the USA, and hand over too many Brits to them (this guy is a Brit). There is particular upset, I gather, that some business dude was extradited to the US. He was accused, rightly or wrongly, of helping one of our worst enemies with tech that could be used for missiles. He may or may not have done the blag. He eventually pleaded guilty, whether for pragmatic reasons or otherwise. Sending him over was, however, considered a bad thing.
PH? Confused? Surely not!
That alleged computer hacker bloke isn't going to the US, either, and that decision wasn't even made by a court, but not that many people seem very upset about that.
Other threads claim that we are too soft on extradition to the USA, and hand over too many Brits to them (this guy is a Brit). There is particular upset, I gather, that some business dude was extradited to the US. He was accused, rightly or wrongly, of helping one of our worst enemies with tech that could be used for missiles. He may or may not have done the blag. He eventually pleaded guilty, whether for pragmatic reasons or otherwise. Sending him over was, however, considered a bad thing.
PH? Confused? Surely not!
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th April 13:05
GPWM.
This beardy has been in jail or in Broadmoor since 2005. He is accused of planning to set up a terrorist training camp.
Let's assume that he is guilty of that crime (after all, we always assume that these guys are guilty - trials and evidence are something we reserve for people we approve of). What sort of sentence would you give him? Planning a camp - not succeeding in the plan, and not carrying out any actual terrorism. Still, it was a wicked plan, that could have led to some bad stuff. A serious offence? Yes. Worthy of custody? Yes. About 7-8 years? Maybe so.
I know that the PH sentencing manual says that anyone who is ever accused, on any grounds, strong or weak, or even on secret grounds that we can't know about, of being an Islamic extremist, must be summarily executed without any form of legal process, but, oddly, the PH sentencing manual isn't popular in any place that has the rule of law. It works very well, however, in the sort of country that the Islamic extremists would like us all to live in.
This beardy has been in jail or in Broadmoor since 2005. He is accused of planning to set up a terrorist training camp.
Let's assume that he is guilty of that crime (after all, we always assume that these guys are guilty - trials and evidence are something we reserve for people we approve of). What sort of sentence would you give him? Planning a camp - not succeeding in the plan, and not carrying out any actual terrorism. Still, it was a wicked plan, that could have led to some bad stuff. A serious offence? Yes. Worthy of custody? Yes. About 7-8 years? Maybe so.
I know that the PH sentencing manual says that anyone who is ever accused, on any grounds, strong or weak, or even on secret grounds that we can't know about, of being an Islamic extremist, must be summarily executed without any form of legal process, but, oddly, the PH sentencing manual isn't popular in any place that has the rule of law. It works very well, however, in the sort of country that the Islamic extremists would like us all to live in.
I'm just suspicious I guess. Just wondering why after his arrest in 2005 he was not extradited then, why he has developed this condition now when fighting extradition, why he can be detained here but not in America and what evidence the Home Office has which they think is more compelling.
In any of these type of cases, there always seem to be a condition of syndrome that stops it and I wonder if that's really always the case or if people run away from taking that decision. He obviously has a legal team who's job it is to invent such reasons why he can't be deported, so I tend to think it 50-50 on most cases.
Ultimately I have to go with the court ruling. Although I would prefer it if it wasn't an 8 year process, and one which took place soley in the UK.
In any of these type of cases, there always seem to be a condition of syndrome that stops it and I wonder if that's really always the case or if people run away from taking that decision. He obviously has a legal team who's job it is to invent such reasons why he can't be deported, so I tend to think it 50-50 on most cases.
Ultimately I have to go with the court ruling. Although I would prefer it if it wasn't an 8 year process, and one which took place soley in the UK.
Several people wanted on terror beefs have been extradited from the UK, including some who claimed medical reasons for staying here. Their claims failed.
This bloke has been in Broadmoor since 2008. If this is all a ruse to get off the hook, it's a ruse that has landed Mr Beard in, I say again, Broadmoor. Is he managing to con all those doctors who say that he needs to be in Broadmoor? Pretty good acting, if so. Also, Judges, contrary to PH myth, are generally fairly robust and not thick (there are exceptions, but I am taking of the generality). They take some convincing that someone should not go to face the music.
The appeals take too long partly because many of these beards do indeed play the system, in order to piss us off, but mainly because the ECtHR is logjammed with cases from Eastern Europe. The UK wins the vast majority of its cases in that Court, but the media tend only to be interested in the few cases that the UK loses.
The bloke has been detained pending extradition. That is lawful. Absent a successful appeal by the UK to the Grand Chamber of the Court, the bloke will be released, unless there is some admissible evidence against him on which he can be tried in the UK.
This bloke has been in Broadmoor since 2008. If this is all a ruse to get off the hook, it's a ruse that has landed Mr Beard in, I say again, Broadmoor. Is he managing to con all those doctors who say that he needs to be in Broadmoor? Pretty good acting, if so. Also, Judges, contrary to PH myth, are generally fairly robust and not thick (there are exceptions, but I am taking of the generality). They take some convincing that someone should not go to face the music.
The appeals take too long partly because many of these beards do indeed play the system, in order to piss us off, but mainly because the ECtHR is logjammed with cases from Eastern Europe. The UK wins the vast majority of its cases in that Court, but the media tend only to be interested in the few cases that the UK loses.
The bloke has been detained pending extradition. That is lawful. Absent a successful appeal by the UK to the Grand Chamber of the Court, the bloke will be released, unless there is some admissible evidence against him on which he can be tried in the UK.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th April 13:45
Not been in Broadmoor before, so wouldn't know what his life in there is like against a prison like Belmarsh. He seems keen to stay in Broadmoor rather than visit America though.
Would be interesting to know more about this guy and why he is still being held here.
Didn't say all Judges are thick, was just wondering what the legal people of the Home Office have which they obviously felt before the hearing would stand up in a hearing with a Judge and which they still seemingly do as they are looking to continue the deportation.
Yep, it sure does take a long time and huge sum of money with these European Court hearings. I just wonder if we don't have enough intelligent Judges in this country and enough hearings and appeal procedures to stop it being a decade long procedure
Would be interesting to know more about this guy and why he is still being held here.
Didn't say all Judges are thick, was just wondering what the legal people of the Home Office have which they obviously felt before the hearing would stand up in a hearing with a Judge and which they still seemingly do as they are looking to continue the deportation.
Yep, it sure does take a long time and huge sum of money with these European Court hearings. I just wonder if we don't have enough intelligent Judges in this country and enough hearings and appeal procedures to stop it being a decade long procedure
Edited by Mr_B on Tuesday 16th April 14:32
Look up Broadmoor - it is where the Ripper, Brady and others are held. It is not a soft option. It is softer than a Super-Max. Would you want to face the risk of a Super-Max sentence? In beardy's position, would you fight, or surrender?
In any legal dispute about anything in any court at any level, each side has a position. The court has to decide which position it prefers. Sometimes, if the government is involved, its lawyers have to advance a position for political or PR reasons, regardless of the view of the merits taken by the lawyers. Also, lawyers are not fortune tellers - we can't always predict the outcome of a dispute before the court decides it. We try to give realistic prognoses, but litigation is a human and organic process and is never based on certainty.
There are strong arguments, which I support, for withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR (while maintaining the HRA in force, to be applied by UK courts). This is unlikely to happen unless and until the UK leaves the EU (as to which move I am ambivalent, but mildly more pro staying in than going out). The ECtHR is not part of the EU, but the EU is now subscribing to the Council of Europe, which operates the ECtHR.
For the present, the system is as it is. It has flaws, not least of which is that the ECtHR is over loaded with cases from all over Europe, and is a body weakened by being too large, and having too much compromise and fudge in its decisions. It was a very useful organisation for many years, but arguably has outlived its usefulness for the UK. Leaving the Court, however, raises much wider issues than the issue of one beardy in Broadmoor.
In any legal dispute about anything in any court at any level, each side has a position. The court has to decide which position it prefers. Sometimes, if the government is involved, its lawyers have to advance a position for political or PR reasons, regardless of the view of the merits taken by the lawyers. Also, lawyers are not fortune tellers - we can't always predict the outcome of a dispute before the court decides it. We try to give realistic prognoses, but litigation is a human and organic process and is never based on certainty.
There are strong arguments, which I support, for withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR (while maintaining the HRA in force, to be applied by UK courts). This is unlikely to happen unless and until the UK leaves the EU (as to which move I am ambivalent, but mildly more pro staying in than going out). The ECtHR is not part of the EU, but the EU is now subscribing to the Council of Europe, which operates the ECtHR.
For the present, the system is as it is. It has flaws, not least of which is that the ECtHR is over loaded with cases from all over Europe, and is a body weakened by being too large, and having too much compromise and fudge in its decisions. It was a very useful organisation for many years, but arguably has outlived its usefulness for the UK. Leaving the Court, however, raises much wider issues than the issue of one beardy in Broadmoor.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th April 14:20
Bread,
I'm sorry but 'intent' is bad enough in my book.
I'm probably in a minority.
Phil
I'm sorry but 'intent' is bad enough in my book.
I'm probably in a minority.
Phil
Breadvan72 said:
GPWM.
This beardy has been in jail or in Broadmoor since 2005. He is accused of planning to set up a terrorist training camp.
Let's assume that he is guilty of that crime (after all, we always assume that these guys are guilty - trials and evidence are something we reserve for people we approve of). What sort of sentence would you give him? Planning a camp - not succeeding in the plan, and not carrying out any actual terrorism. Still, it was a wicked plan, that could have led to some bad stuff. A serious offence? Yes. Worthy of custody? Yes. About 7-8 years? Maybe so.
I know that the PH sentencing manual says that anyone who is ever accused, on any grounds, strong or weak, or even on secret grounds that we can't know about, of being an Islamic extremist, must be summarily executed without any form of legal process, but, oddly, the PH sentencing manual isn't popular in any place that has the rule of law. It works very well, however, in the sort of country that the Islamic extremists would like us all to live in.
This beardy has been in jail or in Broadmoor since 2005. He is accused of planning to set up a terrorist training camp.
Let's assume that he is guilty of that crime (after all, we always assume that these guys are guilty - trials and evidence are something we reserve for people we approve of). What sort of sentence would you give him? Planning a camp - not succeeding in the plan, and not carrying out any actual terrorism. Still, it was a wicked plan, that could have led to some bad stuff. A serious offence? Yes. Worthy of custody? Yes. About 7-8 years? Maybe so.
I know that the PH sentencing manual says that anyone who is ever accused, on any grounds, strong or weak, or even on secret grounds that we can't know about, of being an Islamic extremist, must be summarily executed without any form of legal process, but, oddly, the PH sentencing manual isn't popular in any place that has the rule of law. It works very well, however, in the sort of country that the Islamic extremists would like us all to live in.
Everyone knows of the reputation of Broadmoor, sure, although I would say mostly based on their crimes , rather than the conditions of Broadmoor. I don't know what the difference is between what happens to this guy in Broadmoor, and what would happen in Belmarsh.
Is he in a straight jacket 24 hours a day and spoon fed in a padded cell ?
Does also beg the question of just what its like in a US super-max prison that makes Broadmoor look like a Travelodge.
Seems he is also playing the unknown nationality game too, I guess to keep him in the soft-touch UK. I'll stick my kneck out and say he'll be released, allowed to stay here and he'll spend his day by the UK tax payer.
Is he in a straight jacket 24 hours a day and spoon fed in a padded cell ?
Does also beg the question of just what its like in a US super-max prison that makes Broadmoor look like a Travelodge.
Seems he is also playing the unknown nationality game too, I guess to keep him in the soft-touch UK. I'll stick my kneck out and say he'll be released, allowed to stay here and he'll spend his day by the UK tax payer.
The conditions in a Super-Max are well documented on the net. The Court says that they are very tough, but do not offend against human rights. The current beardy, however, has mental health problems, which the Court says would tip the Super-Max regime over the line to a breach of fundamental rights. I reiterate that several people have already been extradited to face charges that may land them up in Super-Max lockdowns.
Broadmoor is in effect part mental hospital, part prison.
Unknown nationality? I am not sure what that means in this context. Sometimes a person can be Stateless. I gather that this beard is British, but may be mistaken on that.
As for intent, if you start policing what people merely intend in their heads, you are going to live in a book written by Orwell. If you mean that planning should be criminalised, in some circumstances it is, and it should be, but, of course, you have to prove that the planning occurred, and wasn't just chit chat. Some of these people are fantasists and bulls
tters, some of them are serious but ineffective, and some are serious and effective. The public tends to lump them all together.
Assume that in this case the plan was a real plan (skip the bothersome bit about trial and so forth). The question then arises whether about 8 years in the slammer is a fair sentence, or whether a far harsher penalty should be imposed.
On another subject, a British citizen languishes today at Gitmo, despite being cleared by all US security agencies many months ago. Even the US spooks say he should be free to go. He has been held without trial for many years. Unlike most prisoners, he does not know when, if ever, he will be free. No court has convicted him of anything. Obama, for some reason, won't release him. Back to that Orwell book, again, or maybe Kafka, Koestler, or Dumas.
Broadmoor is in effect part mental hospital, part prison.
Unknown nationality? I am not sure what that means in this context. Sometimes a person can be Stateless. I gather that this beard is British, but may be mistaken on that.
As for intent, if you start policing what people merely intend in their heads, you are going to live in a book written by Orwell. If you mean that planning should be criminalised, in some circumstances it is, and it should be, but, of course, you have to prove that the planning occurred, and wasn't just chit chat. Some of these people are fantasists and bulls
tters, some of them are serious but ineffective, and some are serious and effective. The public tends to lump them all together. Assume that in this case the plan was a real plan (skip the bothersome bit about trial and so forth). The question then arises whether about 8 years in the slammer is a fair sentence, or whether a far harsher penalty should be imposed.
On another subject, a British citizen languishes today at Gitmo, despite being cleared by all US security agencies many months ago. Even the US spooks say he should be free to go. He has been held without trial for many years. Unlike most prisoners, he does not know when, if ever, he will be free. No court has convicted him of anything. Obama, for some reason, won't release him. Back to that Orwell book, again, or maybe Kafka, Koestler, or Dumas.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th April 15:51
I expect the his defence will pay for doctors to examine him and they will produce a diagnosis that supports his position. Many, many years ago I had a chance to get a whiplash claim and my insurers sent me to a private doctor who did indeed diagnose I had whiplash.
I'm not saying the doctors would lie but they would produce a favourable conclusion based on the evidence. And vice versa for the prosecution doctors of course.
You don't have to fool doctors, you have to pay them.
I'm not saying the doctors would lie but they would produce a favourable conclusion based on the evidence. And vice versa for the prosecution doctors of course.
You don't have to fool doctors, you have to pay them.
The Court can appoint its own experts to assess someone, and in any event, if faced with two experts offering different opinions, the Court decides which opinion is the most persuasive. Most doctors, although not all of them, have quite strong professional ethics, and express their opinions honestly. The doctors in this case were probably not Accidents R Us rentaquacks.
I usually assume that when a professional person has done a job they have done that job professionally, unless there is evidence to the contrary, although I realise that on PH it is the done thing always to assume that any professional, be he garage mechanic, doctor, lawyer, judge or whatever is a thief and a liar.
I usually assume that when a professional person has done a job they have done that job professionally, unless there is evidence to the contrary, although I realise that on PH it is the done thing always to assume that any professional, be he garage mechanic, doctor, lawyer, judge or whatever is a thief and a liar.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th April 17:06
ECtHR said:
On 27 March 2008 the applicant was transferred to Broadmoor Hospital from HMP Long Lartin because he met the criteria for detention under the United Kingdom’s mental health legislation.
On 11 November 2011 the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health considered the applicant’s case and concluded, having considered the evidence from the applicant’s clinical care team, that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which made it appropriate for him to continue to be liable to detention in a medical hospital for his own health and safety.
In his statement to the Tribunal, Dr A. Payne, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, indicated that:
“[The applicant’s] insight into his illness is limited and if returned to prison he would be exposed to significant stress given the conditions of his detention, the uncertainty of his case and his potential extradition and lengthy incarceration in conditions of solitary confinement. His compliance with medication would be uncertain, particularly in the medium to long term. These factors would be likely to lead to a relapse with deterioration in his mental health and the risk of a consequent deterioration in his physical health due to poor fluid and food intake. I am therefore of the opinion that his mental disorder is of a nature that requires his detention in hospital for medical treatment and that such treatment is necessary for his own health and safety. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence available to justify his detention on the grounds of his risk to others.”
Dr Claire Dillon, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, indicated in a report dated 12 April 2012, that:
“Mr Aswat suffers from an enduring mental disorder, namely paranoid schizophrenia, which has been characterised by auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, delusions of reference, grandeur and guarded and suspicious behaviour. Mr Aswat’s condition is currently well controlled on amilsulpride (anti-psychotic medication). However, he has only partial insight into his illness and he would be likely to relapse if he ceased taking his medication.
Mr Aswat has undertaken psychological work to enhance his understanding of his mental illness and he is able to recognise the need for professional support to manage this. In view of the lack of convictions for violent offences, Mr Aswat has not undertaken any offence-related work whilst at Broadmoor, as the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was awaited. Mr Aswat engages in occupational and vocational activities within the hospital and these, along with his attendance at the Mosque, have helped to prevent any significant deterioration in his mood.”
These sound like Forensic Shrinks working for Broadmoor, and not hired guns.On 11 November 2011 the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health considered the applicant’s case and concluded, having considered the evidence from the applicant’s clinical care team, that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which made it appropriate for him to continue to be liable to detention in a medical hospital for his own health and safety.
In his statement to the Tribunal, Dr A. Payne, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, indicated that:
“[The applicant’s] insight into his illness is limited and if returned to prison he would be exposed to significant stress given the conditions of his detention, the uncertainty of his case and his potential extradition and lengthy incarceration in conditions of solitary confinement. His compliance with medication would be uncertain, particularly in the medium to long term. These factors would be likely to lead to a relapse with deterioration in his mental health and the risk of a consequent deterioration in his physical health due to poor fluid and food intake. I am therefore of the opinion that his mental disorder is of a nature that requires his detention in hospital for medical treatment and that such treatment is necessary for his own health and safety. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence available to justify his detention on the grounds of his risk to others.”
Dr Claire Dillon, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, indicated in a report dated 12 April 2012, that:
“Mr Aswat suffers from an enduring mental disorder, namely paranoid schizophrenia, which has been characterised by auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, delusions of reference, grandeur and guarded and suspicious behaviour. Mr Aswat’s condition is currently well controlled on amilsulpride (anti-psychotic medication). However, he has only partial insight into his illness and he would be likely to relapse if he ceased taking his medication.
Mr Aswat has undertaken psychological work to enhance his understanding of his mental illness and he is able to recognise the need for professional support to manage this. In view of the lack of convictions for violent offences, Mr Aswat has not undertaken any offence-related work whilst at Broadmoor, as the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was awaited. Mr Aswat engages in occupational and vocational activities within the hospital and these, along with his attendance at the Mosque, have helped to prevent any significant deterioration in his mood.”
Full judgment here:-
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/322.html
Timing - from arrest to refusal of petition by the House of Lords, the UK part of the case took 22 months. Thereafter, the delay was attributable to the backlog in Strasbourg, for which the UK's Government and Courts cannot be blamed.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th April 17:04
I think people like this should be deported / extadited / whatever, on the basis that so what if we get a few wrong, as long as most are right? There's enough st to worry about in this world without spending 8 years deciding if someone is really schizo or not.
get rid of him and move on
t to worry about in this world without spending 8 years deciding if someone is really schizo or not.get rid of him and move on
CoolHands said:
I think people like this should be deported / extadited / whatever, on the basis that so what if we get a few wrong, as long as most are right? There's enough st to worry about in this world without spending 8 years deciding if someone is really schizo or not.
get rid of him and move on
I generally agree with the underlying driver, but have to agree with breadvan that whatever we do has to be within the framework of our laws.t to worry about in this world without spending 8 years deciding if someone is really schizo or not.get rid of him and move on
Ignore the specific nature of Hamza's nastiness, but if we encourage operation outside of the law, then it could all too easily bite you or I one day on a whim.
If anything, what we need to do is examine our laws and check they are fit for the intended purpose.
I am not sure, but think that Dewani might be detained in the UK pending possible extradition to South Africa to stand trial, but subject to assessment of his mental health. Incidentally, why describe Dewani as an Asian guy? Would you say "what happened to that Caucasian guy who was arrested for that thing"? Dewani was born in Bristol, so why not say "what happened to that guy from Bristol"? I am not accusing you of anything. I'm genuinely curious about the choice of words.
The suggestion made above about treating anyone accused of certain types of naughtiness as fit to be extradited and/or guilty on the basis that it's better to pot the innocent than let the guilty go free I took as made in jest. If it was a serious suggestion, it hardly needs answering, and has been answered above anyway. I wonder what "people like this" is supposed to mean.
Assange - still in the embassy taking the piss, last I heard.
The suggestion made above about treating anyone accused of certain types of naughtiness as fit to be extradited and/or guilty on the basis that it's better to pot the innocent than let the guilty go free I took as made in jest. If it was a serious suggestion, it hardly needs answering, and has been answered above anyway. I wonder what "people like this" is supposed to mean.
Assange - still in the embassy taking the piss, last I heard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff