Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
TopOnePercent said:
Breadvan72 said:
Here are sone serious questions for you, Top One Per Cent.
At what point must a lawyer decline to represent someone?
At the point they become a convicted terrorist would seem to be more than enough. Put another way - who wouldn't you represent? Myra Hindley? Gary Glitter?At what point must a lawyer decline to represent someone?
This explanation is tantamount to a concentration camp guard stating "Well who else would guard the prisoners? They can't guard themselves". The time to decline work is the time it becomes morally reprehensible at the latest, not once you think you've made as much money as you can out of the job.
Breadvan72 said:
Hamza was convicted of offences in the UK and sentenced for those offences. He is now accused of further offences, of which he may be guilty, but he has not yet been convicted of those. Must he have no representation, because he has unpleasant views and a bad reputation?
A bad reputation? He's been convicted of terrorist activities in which British people have died. You see no wrong in his lawyer stringing out his extradition for 8 years?! It is this kind of moral terpitude that is destroying the country.Breadvan72 said:
Two lawyers in New York have been appointed to defend him. Are they really acting in a manner comparable to an SS guard at Dachau? Staying with Nuremberg analogies for the moment, should the Nazi Defendants simply have been hanged without trial, or not allowed to be represented?
No, they should have been shot. Put another way, what value to justice do you feel the Nazi defendants lawyers added?Breadvan72 said:
Mark Bridger is accused of murdering a child. He may be guilty, but we don't know if he is. Must he be unrepresented because he is accused of a particularly unpleasant crime?
Upon conviction? Yes!! If not then, when?Breadvan72 said:
Due process is a bulwark of a civilised society. Do we only allow due process to people we approve of?
Only so far as it is in the interests of justice and not one step beyond. Handza's legal case bore no resemblance to justice.Breadvan72 said:
I happen to agree that some (not all) of the lawyers who act for alleged terrorists play the system, and they may do so for cynical reasons associated either with ideology or with money, but does abuse of a system invalidate the system?
The systems inability to provide justice is wholly due to the people working within it now and in the past. Yes, the system is invalid, and should be replaced if it cannot be reformed.Breadvan72 said:
Imagine that you were falsely accused of a heinous crime. It does happen - look at the landlord of Jo Yeates, or the chap whose DNA was confused with that of a rapist. Who would you turn to, to assist you through the trial process?
If I was convicted, several times of several different murders, I would not expect the state to be picking up the tab on my appeals. Squealing about the unfairness of facing the consequences of your actions shows a distinctly un-British lack of testicular fortitude.Take someone who is convicted of a serious crime when young. Does this mean that 10 or 20 years later, after serving a sentence, that person cannot be represented when charged with a different crime? In Hamza's case, he has indeed been convicted in the past, but the extradition related to different charges, as to which, under American and English law, he is presumed innocent, whatever views we may have as to the likelihood of him being guilty. I take it that the presumption of innocence is of no importance in your view, or does it only extend to people we approve of?
By the same logic, must a doctor refuse to treat a person convicted of something morally reprehensible?
I asked you who you would turn to do if falsely accused of something, but you didn't answer that question. Suppose you were falsely convicted of a reprehensible crime. By your logic, no lawyer should act for you. Is that just?
As for me, if I am asked to take a case within my range of professional experience (which doesn't include criminal law), I accept it, because it is not for me to make judgements about my clients, whatever I think of them privately. I happen to be one of those lawyers who will not deliberately string a case out or invent points I know to be bad ones, but I think the cab rank principle is important in maintaining equality before the law. The whole point of a trial, even at Nuremberg, was and is to determine guilt or income by due process, rather than by assumption. The Nazi leaders received justice: they were tried and sentenced. Some of the defendants, even there, were acquitted.
What system would you design? Who decides what is in the interests of justice, and how? It is easy to condemn a system that has been worked out over many years, but what do you put in its place?
zcacogp said:
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
If this is about punishing the wife and children then I find it despicable.
RedTrident said:
zcacogp said:
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
If this is about punishing the wife and children then I find it despicable.
They do sound a really nice family.
RedTrident said:
zcacogp said:
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
If this is about punishing the wife and children then I find it despicable.
Breadvan72 said:
By that logic, if someone has once been convicted of something, then he cannot obtain professional help either to appeal the conviction (and we know that a small percentage of convictions are false), or to be represented on a later and separate charge. None of the high profile victims of miscarriages of justice in recent years could have obtained help to reverse the wrongful conviction.
Take someone who is convicted of a serious crime when young. Does this mean that 10 or 20 years later, after serving a sentence, that person cannot be represented when charged with a different crime? In Hamza's case, he has indeed been convicted in the past, but the extradition related to different charges, as to which, under American and English law, he is presumed innocent, whatever views we may have as to the likelihood of him being guilty. I take it that the presumption of innocence is of no importance in your view, or does it only extend to people we approve of?
By the same logic, must a doctor refuse to treat a person convicted of something morally reprehensible?
I asked you who you would turn to do if falsely accused of something, but you didn't answer that question. Suppose you were falsely convicted of a reprehensible crime. By your logic, no lawyer should act for you. Is that just?
As for me, if I am asked to take a case within my range of professional experience (which doesn't include criminal law), I accept it, because it is not for me to make judgements about my clients, whatever I think of them privately. I happen to be one of those lawyers who will not deliberately string a case out or invent points I know to be bad ones, but I think the cab rank principle is important in maintaining equality before the law. The whole point of a trial, even at Nuremberg, was and is to determine guilt or income by due process, rather than by assumption. The Nazi leaders received justice: they were tried and sentenced. Some of the defendants, even there, were acquitted.
What system would you design? Who decides what is in the interests of justice, and how? It is easy to condemn a system that has been worked out over many years, but what do you put in its place?
I am reminded of those cases where the convicted was 'obviously guilty', only to later find that s/he was not. The right to legal representation has to be maintained in our democracy - what ever the cost or the 'abuse'. Perhaps in parts it does need reform, but many walk the streets today free from guilt of crimes once accused and convicted of.Take someone who is convicted of a serious crime when young. Does this mean that 10 or 20 years later, after serving a sentence, that person cannot be represented when charged with a different crime? In Hamza's case, he has indeed been convicted in the past, but the extradition related to different charges, as to which, under American and English law, he is presumed innocent, whatever views we may have as to the likelihood of him being guilty. I take it that the presumption of innocence is of no importance in your view, or does it only extend to people we approve of?
By the same logic, must a doctor refuse to treat a person convicted of something morally reprehensible?
I asked you who you would turn to do if falsely accused of something, but you didn't answer that question. Suppose you were falsely convicted of a reprehensible crime. By your logic, no lawyer should act for you. Is that just?
As for me, if I am asked to take a case within my range of professional experience (which doesn't include criminal law), I accept it, because it is not for me to make judgements about my clients, whatever I think of them privately. I happen to be one of those lawyers who will not deliberately string a case out or invent points I know to be bad ones, but I think the cab rank principle is important in maintaining equality before the law. The whole point of a trial, even at Nuremberg, was and is to determine guilt or income by due process, rather than by assumption. The Nazi leaders received justice: they were tried and sentenced. Some of the defendants, even there, were acquitted.
What system would you design? Who decides what is in the interests of justice, and how? It is easy to condemn a system that has been worked out over many years, but what do you put in its place?
Under whose remit would it fall to review the processes of Hamza's case to determine if reform was necessary/required?
On analysis, the Hamza case was only really abusive at the end, if you accept the basic concept that even horrible people with horrible opinions have a right to due process. The US asked for him years ago, but the UK decided to prosecute him for something else here first. He was jailed for offences. After his sentence was up, the US renewed the application to extradite. After the usual UK processes, things bogged down because of the Strasbourg challenge. Delays at the EctHr are a problem, and another reason for withdrawing from the Court (but not the Convention). The final challenge, swiftly dismissed last week, was a pure abuse, in my view.
PRTVR said:
RedTrident said:
zcacogp said:
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
If this is about punishing the wife and children then I find it despicable.
They do sound a really nice family.
- One imprisoned in Yemen on terrorism charges
- Three convicted in the UK of fraud relating to car theft
- One convicted in the UK for violent disorder
- One convicted in the UK for theft from a jewellery shop
I struggle to muster even the slightest shred of sympathy for any member of the family, and suggest that if so many of his sons are being given accommodation elsewhere at Her Majesty's Pleasure then we most certainly shouldn't be funding big houses in one of the most expensive parts of London for Abu Hamza's wife.
Oli.
RedTrident said:
zcacogp said:
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
If this is about punishing the wife and children then I find it despicable.
speedchick said:
But, if I remember right, one of the things mentioned after the riots last year was that the rioters were putting their family's council tenancys at risk if/when they were convicted, as there is supposed to be something in each tenancy agreement about behaving and not getting criminal records or something like that. The actions of one person could have repercussions for the whole family.
or in this case, just about the whole family based on their criminal records....zcacogp said:
Eight sons (not including stepsons).
- One imprisoned in Yemen on terrorism charges
- Three convicted in the UK of fraud relating to car theft
- One convicted in the UK for violent disorder
- One convicted in the UK for theft from a jewellery shop
I struggle to muster even the slightest shred of sympathy for any member of the family, and suggest that if so many of his sons are being given accommodation elsewhere at Her Majesty's Pleasure then we most certainly shouldn't be funding big houses in one of the most expensive parts of London for Abu Hamza's wife.
Oli.
Salt of the earth, they give due process a bad name, much as I have a large measure of contempt for the American system of defining and prosecuting terrorism, in his case seems like justice is about to be done (locked away for ever) - One imprisoned in Yemen on terrorism charges
- Three convicted in the UK of fraud relating to car theft
- One convicted in the UK for violent disorder
- One convicted in the UK for theft from a jewellery shop
I struggle to muster even the slightest shred of sympathy for any member of the family, and suggest that if so many of his sons are being given accommodation elsewhere at Her Majesty's Pleasure then we most certainly shouldn't be funding big houses in one of the most expensive parts of London for Abu Hamza's wife.
Oli.
RedTrident said:
zcacogp said:
Mr_B said:
Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now
"Asked to consider moving out" - she has a lifetime tenancy so they can't kick her out - more's the pity. And I have to say, my money is on her not going until she absolutely has to (much like her husband). Oli.
If this is about punishing the wife and children then I find it despicable.
My heart bleeds.
zcacogp said:
I struggle to muster even the slightest shred of sympathy for any member of the family, and suggest that if so many of his sons are being given accommodation elsewhere at Her Majesty's Pleasure then we most certainly shouldn't be funding big houses in one of the most expensive parts of London for Abu Hamza's wife.
Oli.
I'm sure that's what the Council thought with their 'suggestion'. Oli.
I'm all in support of tenancy agreements that are not for life although I'd hate to see an elderly woman kicked out of her 2 bedroom flat after her husband dies. I could even be persuaded that if a family member is convicted of a crime then the local authority landlord can evict the entire family.
Thankfully we live in a country where if such rules were to be introduced then they would apply to everyone and the rules (and exemptions) would be very clear.
The more I look at the Council's statement the more I see it as a cheap publicity stunt.
RedTrident said:
zcacogp said:
I struggle to muster even the slightest shred of sympathy for any member of the family, and suggest that if so many of his sons are being given accommodation elsewhere at Her Majesty's Pleasure then we most certainly shouldn't be funding big houses in one of the most expensive parts of London for Abu Hamza's wife.
Oli.
I'm sure that's what the Council thought with their 'suggestion'. Oli.
I'm all in support of tenancy agreements that are not for life although I'd hate to see an elderly woman kicked out of her 2 bedroom flat after her husband dies. I could even be persuaded that if a family member is convicted of a crime then the local authority landlord can evict the entire family.
Thankfully we live in a country where if such rules were to be introduced then they would apply to everyone and the rules (and exemptions) would be very clear.
The more I look at the Council's statement the more I see it as a cheap publicity stunt.
And the Council's 'ask to consider' bit would be purely based upon the size of the house and the number of occupants currently in it rather than anything to do with the criminal convictions of one (or in this case many!) of the family members.
I remember following last year's riots the idea that local authority landlords could evict entire families following the criminality of one of the household members. No idea what came of it though.
I remember following last year's riots the idea that local authority landlords could evict entire families following the criminality of one of the household members. No idea what came of it though.
RedTrident said:
I'd hate to see an elderly woman kicked out of her 2 bedroom flat after her husband dies.
A specious comment if ever there was one; Abu Hamza married Nadjet in 1984 when she was 17. She's 45 now. Discussions about elderly people are kind-hearted but not relevant in this case. Oli.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff