UK 'Al-Qaeda' plotter: so what's his crime then?

[mauvais]

once upon a time, hijacking planes ... and using them as flying suicide-bombs against huge buildings seemed fairly far fetched to most people.

 

[DexterTCN]

Stephen King did it first in The Running Man.

All I hear in the news is 'britishmuslimbritishmuslim'.

Isn't there an election today someplace?

 

[Azrael]

Hi Azrael

I assume you say that because even when he is released he is still likely to be a threat, is that why?

That's not very likely is it?

Justice should not simply quarantine men suffering from the crime disease, but deliver a proportionate act of retribution on behalf of society. Usually that should incorporate rehabilitation, but some crimes are so horrific the culprit should be denied any chance of reform, whether by means of a natural-life tariff or judicial execution. I haven't decided which.

I am not remotely ashamed of this view, any more than I am my views on civil liberty. In fact it makes the latter views possible.

And if so what do you think about releasing paedofiles after their sentence when they still also often or even perhaps usually present a threat to children?

Sorry, what does this have to do with the thread? (I don't think they should be executed if that's what you're getting at.)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We are getting blown up much less often than when the IRA was having a go frankly, I'd say that terrorism was in a bit of a recession at the moment.

Either that or the interdiction measures are having an effect.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Counsel do what the client wants, this client wanted to be the most dangerous terrorist and he has succeeded, branded as such by one of the best legal systems in the world..

Counsel owe a duty to the client, but they have other duties and responsibilities as well. They can't take instructions from someone who is under a mental disability. If they suspect that that is the case, there are avenues that they must pursue, to ensure that they are getting adequate instruction in the matter.

 

[TAE]

What would the thread have looked like if he had denied the allegations rather than admitted them?

People would, quite rightly, be asking what the evidence is.

And it's worthy of note that even now, 2 years after arrest, the police have just said they have still not been able to access all the information on the computers he had - some because of encrytion, some because they have been able to make sense of it. Expect to see this mentioned next time the 90 day detention pre-charge comes up (but, equally, feel free to point out that they managed this one with only 14 days to play with (just!) and they now have 28!)

It just shows how meaningless the 90 day figure is.

 

[Jonti]

The dude should have just used his research to write a novel. They can't touch for researching and writing novels yet. He have ended up rich and famous, and someone else would have put his plans into action anyway.

 

[likesfish]

if he'd just written his bonkers plan in a mouldy bedsit he might have a harmless nut just like the soho bomber he was a nut not harmless though
he'd taken trips to pakistan and met with al qaidia types so some of his plans were bonkers I'm sure given time he'd have found something that was feasable and would cause mass carnage

 

[detective-boy]

He was found guilty of Conspiracy to Murder when he had no means, no credible plan and no supplies to commit any such act. Just a big fantasy; you're dam right we shouldn't give him the satisfaction, he was and remains a trivial risk to my health but his fantasy will be used to erode the civil liberties on which a free society depends.

No. He wasn't. He pleaded guilty (you really don't have a fucking clue, do you? ) to a conspiracy which was to some extent credible in terms of intended means, plan of execution and proposed source of supplies. Just because YOU don't know the detailed evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What do you expect them to do? Send the fucking Commissioner round to see you with all the evidence, so you can check it personally ...

I am surpriused you survive, if you feel able to state a "risk" assessment on the basis of the fuck-all you actually know . You'd be dead crossing the fucking road ...

 

[detective-boy]

I see no argument why the law (or policy, whichever it is) shouldn't be changed (and bureaucracy slashed) to allow evidence to be gathered after charges have been laid.

...

Demanding the entire case be ready before the charges are laid surely helps no one,

...

I also support the abolition of the PACE codes,

...

I simply believe four weeks of interrogation, however well conducted, would be enough to mess with anyone's mind.

There is no reason in law, nor in practice which prevents evidence being sought between charge and trial (other than by further interview about the same charges, except in closely prescribed circumstances). New evidence continues to amass in the vast majority of cases of all types.

It is simply CPS practice which requires the police to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the CPS evidential test (conviction more likely than not) before charge. It's meant to avoid post-charge delays because the CPS don't have to send memos back and too asking for more stuff before carrying out their first review / setting the pre-trial review date.

I think you are very wrong concerning the PACE Codes of Practice. They have helped the UK put in place one of the fairest systems for dealing with prisoners in police detention in the world. They have ensured any evidence is reliable and admissible. They are a pain in the arse sometimes, there are things that do need to be changed / simplified but, overall, they are worth their weight in gold. Police officers (mostly older ones) whinge about them but that is because they don't understand them (the training was shite for in service officers when they came in in 1985). Used sensibly (and some police officers apply them stupdily!) and robustly they are not a problem in the vast majority of cases.

I agree with your comments about 4 weeks of interrogation ... but as I have posted before, I don't think anyone envisages that - there would be occasional re-interviews over the period but PACE would not allow constant interview anyway unless there were genuine new things to talk about (repeated questioning on the same subject after denials / silence is considered "oppressive" in law and would be unlawful).

 

[detective-boy]

And since guilt can now be inferred, no comment interviews have gone down. An innocent man could easily feel pressured into continuing to talk.

The aim is to achieve (a) (a guilty man feeling pressured into talking) without (b) (an innocent man feeling pressured into making false admissions of guilt).

I think there is sufficient distance between the two for this to be achieved.

 

[detective-boy]

People would, quite rightly, be asking what the evidence is.

My point was that they would actually be listening to all the stuff (which has caused him to plead guilty and therefore IS enough to demonstrate guilt to someone who knows that is the case and (due credit to him) is willing to accept that guilt rather than try and play the system) and saying "No, he's not guilty". Sometimes the evidence does look thin, even in a genuine case. Remember this next time we have one - just 'cos it looks thin doesn't mean it is - if you intervene sooner (as is going to be the case where the risks of allowing an attack to happen are sky high) then you will have cases that look like this, evidence-wise.

 

[In Bloom]

Anybody who seriously considers killing thousands of innocent people and even goes so far as to come up with detailed plans on how he'd do it clearly needs to be placed in custody for the saftey of others and himself, regardless of the feasibility of his specific plans.

That said, it really wouldn't surprise me if the level of danger presented by this guy has been seriously exagerated. It wouldn't be the first time a "terrorist plot" has been severely overegged.

 

[lostexpectation]

I beginngin to admit this guy was for real, how long was he doing all this running around to lead to bombing?

 

[Loki]

I'm with Kameron all the way here. It's a lone fantasist without proper expertise, with a daft plan that would never work.

It's almost as idiotic as the CIA swooping on that 14-year old girl for throwaway comments she made on myspace about killing prez Bush.

Fuck's sake.

 

[Kameron]

TBH I think I already covered his plea in #76 and I find your declared faith in the justice system touching. If I haven't seen stuff and people don't come up with credible reasons why it isn't in the pd the I tend to assume that it doesn't exist not that it does but it is too sensitive, boring or heavy to photo copy.

 

[Azrael]

There is no reason in law, nor in practice which prevents evidence being sought between charge and trial (other than by further interview about the same charges, except in closely prescribed circumstances). New evidence continues to amass in the vast majority of cases of all types.

It is simply CPS practice which requires the police to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the CPS evidential test (conviction more likely than not) before charge. It's meant to avoid post-charge delays because the CPS don't have to send memos back and too asking for more stuff before carrying out their first review / setting the pre-trial review date.

Ah yes, the CPS. (Is it still "criminal protection service" or have coppers thought up a new misspecification?) I'm not convinced we need this massive extra layer of bureaucracy to do a job the police used to do themselves. They're often compared to the US District Attorneys, but from what I gather the DA system is far less pervasive: more of an oversight on really bad police prosecutions and practical means of providing good lawyers at trial. A major reason behind the CPS's existence is surely cutting back on prosecutions that may be perfectly sound in law but are not seen as cost-effective. Regardless of the moral implications of turning many potential criminals loose without a chance of conviction, the long-term implications of leaving such men on the street isn't the best cost-benefit analysis I've ever seen.

I think you are very wrong concerning the PACE Codes of Practice.

Hey, wrong script, you're supposed to be telling me how it was better when you could feel collars and let men trip over their own flares.

They have helped the UK put in place one of the fairest systems for dealing with prisoners in police detention in the world. They have ensured any evidence is reliable and admissible. They are a pain in the arse sometimes, there are things that do need to be changed / simplified but, overall, they are worth their weight in gold. Police officers (mostly older ones) whinge about them but that is because they don't understand them (the training was shite for in service officers when they came in in 1985). Used sensibly (and some police officers apply them stupdily!) and robustly they are not a problem in the vast majority of cases.

I agree there should be some sort of code, but does it has to be so extensive? Scotland still operates under a modified common law system and, to my knowledge, is doing OK. Basic stuff like keeping suspects fed and watered and letting them get some kip is just common sense, but forcing police to do everything on the record inevitably results in them getting draconian powers as compensation. (While English bobbies have 96 hours to question suspects their Scottish equivalent has six!) Now the inevitable is happening: Labour's watering down the protections and keeping the draconian powers.

I agree with your comments about 4 weeks of interrogation ... but as I have posted before, I don't think anyone envisages that - there would be occasional re-interviews over the period but PACE would not allow constant interview anyway unless there were genuine new things to talk about (repeated questioning on the same subject after denials / silence is considered "oppressive" in law and would be unlawful).

Problem with the Terrorism Act is that not all interviews have to be tape-recorded, and I can well see the restrictions on interviews going out the window "for the greater good" some time soon.

If interrogation is not the issue why can't holding charges be used? The Italians levelled a string of charges against a fleeing July 2005 accomplice within hours of capturing him (driving the British media into a brief frenzy until they realised not all countries can bang people up for weeks at a time without charge).

The aim is to achieve (a) (a guilty man feeling pressured into talking) without (b) (an innocent man feeling pressured into making false admissions of guilt).

I think there is sufficient distance between the two for this to be achieved.

How? A (disoriented) innocent man doesn't have to make blatantly false admissions of guilt: in a high-stress environment and not knowing all the evidence against him, he can make himself look guilty as hell by explaining himself in a bad way.

I'm not one of those vaguely embarrassing civil libertarians who makes the protection against self-incrimination an end in itself (I've seen serious suggestions that fingerprints should never be taken because it constitutes self-incrimination!), but speech is always going to be inexact and open to interpretation to a degree that other methods of evidence are not.

 

[Azrael]

TBH I think I already covered his plea in #76 and I find your declared faith in the justice system touching. If I haven't seen stuff and people don't come up with credible reasons why it isn't in the pd the I tend to assume that it doesn't exist not that it does but it is too sensitive, boring or heavy to photo copy.

Presumably I also suffer from this "declared faith in the justice system"? In case you missed it, me and detective-boy got into a massive row about Control Orders on another thread because I stuck rigidly to the principle that the public should never have to take justice on faith.

Yet here we are agreeing on this conviction.

Tell you something about your position?

 

[Kameron]

Tell you something about your position?

Not really, my enemies enemy is my friend is a fairly cretinous position for the over tens. I'm sure that if we do some excavation in our political consciousness then you will find something that me and detective boy disagree with you on - are you giving an undertaking to fold such an opinion? I doubt it.

I just don't find it a defensible position to convict someone of conspiring to do something that they could never have done. Products of the imagination, no matter how febrile, are not in my opinion the basis for a criminal prosecution not matter how may people you talk to them about.

 

[Azrael]

Not really, my enemies enemy is my friend is a fairly cretinous position for the over tens. I'm sure that if we do some excavation in our political consciousness then you will find something that me and detective boy disagree with you on - are you giving an undertaking to fold such an opinion? I doubt it.

Who said anything about enemy's enemy and friends? (And if you think you become my enemy by disagreeing with me on an internet board I like to visit from time to time, you better check your self-importance for punctures ASAP.) I simply pointed out that a rather extreme civil libertarian and rather more pragmatic ex-copper both agree this conviction was entirely warranted, and perhaps that tells you something about its merits.

I just don't find it a defensible position to convict someone of conspiring to do something that they could never have done. Products of the imagination, no matter how febrile, are not in my opinion the basis for a criminal prosecution not matter how may people you talk to them about.

He visited terrorist training camps. I wouldn't be so certain he could never do it.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, it wasn't a product of the imagination: he was actively taking steps to kill a load of people. Doesn't matter if he was incompetent, he wanted to commit mass-murder. He's clearly a deeply nasty and dangerous individual who shouldn't be let loose on the streets. (And thankfully no longer is.)

 

[MikeMcc]

...
I just don't find it a defensible position to convict someone of conspiring to do something that they could never have done. Products of the imagination, no matter how febrile, are not in my opinion the basis for a criminal prosecution not matter how may people you talk to them about.

Whether he could or could not carry out the plans is immaterial. He gathered the information, received training in terrorist techniques and had the contacts to pass on the information that he gathered. Whether he did pass on the info or not has not been released (AFAIK). It is a standard technique of terrorist groups to use people whos sole task is to gather intelligence, appearing to be a rather Walter Mitty character actually helps with this as it provides a passable excuse.

the fact is that he admitted to the crime, with the apparent backing of his defense counsel, you can't get much more guilty than that.

 

[Loki]

Years before 9/11, publications like Private Eye suggested that once Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell, the intelligence services would scramble to find a new raison d'etre. The most likely vehicle? Why, terrorism.

The head of MI5 has gone public today and assured the public that they cannot rest easy from terrorist attacks "for a generation." MI5 has increased in size by nearly 50% since 9/11.

People are no longer terrified of them commie reds, it's them islamofascists now. "We have always been at war" etc.

1,600 "suspects" under surveillance.

"Terror cells" now appear to include lone fantasists. George Orwell's "thoughtcrime" is with us.

*suitably dramatic OTT smiley*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6134516.stm

 

[TAE]

My point was that they would actually be listening to all the stuff [...] and saying "No, he's not guilty". Sometimes the evidence does look thin, even in a genuine case. Remember this next time we have one - just 'cos it looks thin doesn't mean it is - if you intervene sooner (as is going to be the case where the risks of allowing an attack to happen are sky high) then you will have cases that look like this, evidence-wise.

If the evidence looks thin, then people have every right to say "the evidence looks thin" and be sceptical.

 

[detective-boy]

TBH I think I already covered his plea in #76 and I find your declared faith in the justice system touching. If I haven't seen stuff and people don't come up with credible reasons why it isn't in the pd the I tend to assume that it doesn't exist not that it does but it is too sensitive, boring or heavy to photo copy.

You'd be wrong then.

It is standard practice in cases where there is a plea of guilty for the prosecution to provide a brief summary of the evidence (rarely more than a few hours at absolute most, and usually less than an hour), for the judge to ask about anything they want more detail on (usually something that may affect sentence as an aggravating or mitigating factor), for the defence to draw attention to any aspect of the evidence they think is relevant (rarely very much as defence and prosecution agree the "basis of the plea" before it is given and so the defence know what the prosecution is going to say before they say it anyway) and that is it.

And even the details provided by the prosecution are reported sparsely by the media so there is always a lot more actually in the public domain than you know unless you were sat in the public gallery.

Don't believe me? Go sit in the Old Bailey for a few days and watch what happens. Then compare your notes of what happened with the reports in the papers the next day.

As for counsel doing what the defendant instructs ... you are wrong there too, for the reasons already mentioned. There is some scope for the defendant keen on notoriety to allow / influence a "bad" spin on the story, but the story will not even be being told (at least not after a plea of guilty) unless prosecution CPS & counsel, defence solicitors & counsel and judge agree that there is sufficient admissible evidence on which a plea can be justified. If not, as sometimes happens, the judge can refuse the plea and insist on a full trial.

 

[detective-boy]

A major reason behind the CPS's existence is surely cutting back on prosecutions that may be perfectly sound in law but are not seen as cost-effective.

The CPS were introduced for a variety of reasons. Central was the perception (which had some basis in fact) that the police pursued unsound, often minor, prosecutions against people they didn't like, just to piss them about (hence the public interest test) and that, as non-lawyers, they frequently did not notice an important bit if evidence was missing (hence the sufficiency of evidence test). There was also a very strong feeling that there was an intention to cut the number of cases going to court and (hence) save money (though it was portrayed as being intended to free up court time to spend on more important cases and cut the massive delays which were being encountered).

Problem with the Terrorism Act is that not all interviews have to be tape-recorded, and I can well see the restrictions on interviews going out the window "for the greater good" some time soon.

Haven't got a copy of the Terrorism Act 2000 Code of Practice but my recollection is that there has to be some justification for not taping interviews. I am aware that many are anyway, if for no other reason than any admissions are far more believable by the jury if they can hear them being made.

If interrogation is not the issue why can't holding charges be used?

Because a procedural rule prevents it. It was considered wrong that the police should be able to use holding charges and so the practice was stopped. The police had no problem with it, and would not have a problem with it now. There are some real practical difficulties with the requirement to have the evidence sufficient for the "conviction more likely than not" test the CPS apply available before charge. IT really does put dangerous people back on the streets on police bail whilst cases are put together, exhibits are examined, tests are run, IDs are established, CCTV is watched ...

It is an unintended consequence of a procedural change brought in for a justifiable reason. The Scots, who have 6 hours as you say, use holding charges all the time. To suggest they can meet the CPS evidential test in 6 hours in all cases whilst the English police can't because they are better, or the English police aren't trying, is wrong.

How? A (disoriented) innocent man doesn't have to make blatantly false admissions of guilt: in a high-stress environment and not knowing all the evidence against him, he can make himself look guilty as hell by explaining himself in a bad way.

I agree that a confused / unintelligent suspect may make comments which are not clear and, hence partially incriminate themselves. That is why there are safeguards against repeated questioning about the same point. It is not allowed. A solicitor will not allow it. A court will be quite likely to rule it oppressive and, if they do, they are required to kick the admissions out (s.76 PACE). And they do.

Whilst suspected terrorists do get more extensive / thorough / robust interviewing that "ordinary" suspects, it really does not stray too far from the norm and the rules which are in place, and which are applied, set the limits as well as any rules can, I think.

 

[detective-boy]

I just don't find it a defensible position to convict someone of conspiring to do something that they could never have done.

I'm not sure you can justify that sweeping statement. Could Barot really not have acquired a limousine or two, stuffed it full of gas bottles, etc. and managed to explode it in some underground car park? Some aspects of his plan were less likely to be possible, but not all by any means.

And that does not affect his conviction, though it may affect the appropriateness of his sentence (whilst I agree with the basic life, even if only one aspect of the plan was do-able, I think the 40 year tariff could be harder to justify)

 

[detective-boy]

If the evidence looks thin, then people have every right to say "the evidence looks thin" and be sceptical.

In a contested case, yes. In a plea of guilty, by a fully represented defendant, unless there are any significant grounds (e.g. a defendant known to suffer documented mental incapacity a la Stefan Kisko), no. The plea of guilty fattens the evidence quicker than a Burger King Super Double Sized Man-Burger ...) (Mr Justice Oliver would be horrified, and start a Court Dinners Campaign, no doubt ... )

 

[kyser_soze]

What are NLCs? Google doesn't seem to be able to help.

Apols - it's my (well not quite) term that does away with terrorist/freedom fighter - means 'Non Linear Combatants'. Based on an interview that some CIA spook gave to Paxman on Newsnight; he described such persons as 'Issue Based Non-Linear Combatants', their actions as 'Issue Based Non-linear combat' etc etc

An army soldier, OTOH, would be described as a 'Linear Combatant' in this frame of reference, altho the main reason forusing the term is to take the emotive content out of the discussion (and get rid of the 'one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' stuff)

 

[Kameron]

I'm not sure you can justify that sweeping statement. Could Barot really not have acquired a limousine or two, stuffed it full of gas bottles, etc. and managed to explode it in some underground car park? Some aspects of his plan were less likely to be possible, but not all by any means.

You are obviously in awe of Barot's skills. I can see that you have given the impression in your post that he was planning to pick up a couple of gas bottles at Tesco, drive into the basement open them up and drop a match - The prosecuting QC on the other hand was careful NOT to give that impression so lets stick to was is in the public domain and you should not try and make to much mileage by inferring that stuff not in the PD supports your theorising about what Borat's plans might have been. Innit.


With all this planning, planning described in court as in the final stages you'd think he would have been able to get some funding? But it seems that al-Qaedas purse strings weren't convinced.

 

[snadge]

It's all gone a bit minority report for me like....