The Stansted Nine-"A Narrative".

It's hard to pick up a tabloid these days without reading billious rants here and here about one or more of three institutions.

First, our liberal judges, who aren’t tough enough and don’t lock up enough criminals for long enough- even though we incarcerate more of our citizens for longer that any other European state.

Second, anything to do with Europe, even if, like the European Convention on Human Rights, it’s nothing to do with their real hate icon- the European Union.

And finally, The Human Rights Act and lawyers who deal with human rights. This allows them to bash Cherie Blair.

The decision of Mr Justice Sullivan allowing nine Afghans, who fled  from  Taliban Afghanistan six years ago, to remain in the United Kingdom, hit all three buttons at once.

It is often forgotten that the Stansted Nine were acquitted of all criminal charges arising out of the “hijack” of an Ariana Boeing 727 from Kabul in February 2000.

The history  of  the incident and subsequent legal proceedings, have been conveniently overlooked.

The nine were arrested at the peaceful conclusion of the “siege” at Stansted Airport in February 2000. There were all remanded into custody and remained there until their convictions were quashed as unsafe by the Court of Appeal in May 2003.

There were two trials. The first, in January 2001, collapsed when the jury were unable to reach verdicts.

They were all found guilty after the second trial in December 2001 and sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment.

Brothers Mohammed Safi, 35, and university lecturer Ali Safi, 37 who were found to have masterminded the plan were jailed for five years.

Six of their accomplices were sentenced to 30 months each, and the youngest, 18 at the time, was given 27 months.

By the time they were released, six had completed their sentences and the others had only a few months to serve.

The media tell us that the quashing of their conviction was based on a legal technicality. But that technicality was important. The judge at the second trial failed to correctly tell the jury about the test they had to apply when examining the defence of duress.

The Court of Appeal had the option to order a re-trial. The hysteria whipped up by the right wing press made a re-trial impossible.

Back to Mr Justice Sullivan.

His decision was not based on the Human Rights Act.

He was hearing an application by the Stansted Nine arising from a decision of the immigration appeal panel’s ruling in 2004 that all nine should be given discretionary leave to remain in the U.K. The tribunal having found that their lives would be in danger were they to be returned to Afghanistan. During the hearing, the decision of Blunkett to order their deportation tribunal was described as “mind boggling”.

The Home Office failed to appeal the ruling or enforce it. They simply allowed the nine to remain in the UK with a status that prevented them from doing anything to improve their lives. They could neither work nor study. They were no doubt the classic asylum scroungers so beloved of the tabloids.

It was this “abuse of power” that Mr Justice Sullivan found so reprehensible.  It was an issue that Blair in yesterday’s tabloid rant-

“We can't have a situation in which people who hijack a plane we are not able to deport back to their country. It is not an abuse of justice for us to order their deportation. It is an abuse of common sense, frankly, to be in a position where we can't do this."

  ignores.

Comments

[APL]

Would you agree, the first duty of the state is to protect its own citizens?

Has it ever been the case in English/British law that one may benefit from an unlawful act?

Might you describe the coercion of the pilot and crew of an aircraft to change their flight plan, under threat of physical violence, as a lawful or unlawful act?

Might you even describe such behaviour as an ´hijack´?

[Tony Hatfield]

Yes indeed it is the first duty BUT, and it's a big bugger, this must be done within the law yes?
t

[MatGB]

Tony, thank you for the analysis, I was hoping someone with a blog and a better trained legal mind than I would be able to do the legwork. As you've (understandably) switched TB off, I've posted on the subject (again):
http://not-little-england.blogspot.com/2006/05/afghan-hijackers-legal-and-human.html and also wonder if you have any experience with the PCC? This is disgusting:
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/carolemalone/tm_column_date=14052006-name_index.html

[APL]

TH: ¨..BUT..¨

So Tony, has it ever been the case in English/British law that one may benefit from an unlawful act?

[Tony Hatfield]

APL,
That's a fucking great sweep of history.
I'm off to Sicily Thursday, I may hay have time to give this the thought it deserves.
t

[Tony Hatfield]

APL,
Afore I go.
Are you suggesting that the act(s) which gave rise to the arrest of the Afghan 9 were unlawful/illegal? If so I may be able to spend more time getting pissed on that beautiful island.
Their convictions were quashed. That, I think, means that they were effectively never convicted. The acquittal puts them into a position immediately before the act was committed. It was not illegal.
Compare it to a punter of mine charged with assault who was aquitted because the jury/Court of Appeal found that he/she acted in self defence. The assault took place, but it was not illegal.

t

[APL]

TH: ¨Their convictions were quashed. That, I think, means that they were effectively never convicted.¨

Ok. But their convictions were quashed because the judge f***** up. Incorrectly summing up, No? How an experienced judge can comtemplate his summing up and leave it open to legal challenge is an interesting question in itself. It is not as if it was a rush job now was it?

Anyway, just for fun, suppose the judge had directed the jury to find not guilty. Would the jury have been obliged to follow his instructions?

TH: ¨The acquittal puts them into a position immediately before the act was committed.¨

Does it? I would have thought it put them in a position immediately before the trial, suspected of air piracy but not proven yet?

TH: ¨It was not illegal.¨

Interesting, are you saying that quashing a conviction because of a legal technicality, makes the offence they were charged with legal?

In the ruling quashing the judgement, was any of the evidence brought into question? Or was it just the fact that the trial judge screwed up?

Have a great time in Sicily.

[Tony Hatfield]

APL,
Let me try this again.
Whatever position the quashing of the conviction put the nine in, I hope you agree that innocent fits the bill.
I think you're not giving sufficient weight to the importance of the "technicality".
Image you have been charged with assaulting me.You claim you had to use violence, not because I'm a twat, but because I threatened you with a knife. You end up in court. And in his summing up, the judge failed to direct the jury correctly about the law of self defence.The Court of Appeal quash your conviction.
Now I don't suppose you'd be too chuffed of the Sun referred to you as guilty of the offence would you?
Now I'm off....really.

[APL]

TH: ¨Whatever position the quashing of the conviction put the nine in, I hope you agree that innocent fits the bill.¨

Yes indeedy. But we still have to explain how a civilian aircraft was diverted off course, without the consent of the pilot, or any other legal authority.

If it turns out to have been a pleasure jaunt by the pilot then it clearly is a matter for his employers. I don´t think anyone is actually suggesting such a thing, do you? If he was coerced into changing his flight plan, then it seems to me prima facie, an unlawful act has been committed. Rightfully we ought to put the people who are suspected of the act on trial.

Since, as you say, they havn´t been tried, they ought to be tried.

Anything wrong with that?

[Tony Hatfield]

apl,
I can't recall saying they haven't been tried they clearly have-and their convictions have been quashed. End of story.
And yes, the plane was diverted, but what took place did not constitute an offence. The lawyer in me would say there was an actus reus-a guilty act, but no mens rea- no guilty mind. See Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

Back to the assault example.
t