Should terrorist religious fanatics be allowed to settle within the UK

[yorksrob]

From the Telegraph:

Call to strip Islamic State ‘Beatle’ being sent back to Britain of citizenship
Aine Davis, from London, could be free to walk UK’s streets within days after serving a seven-year prison sentence in Turkey

Call to strip Islamic State ‘Beatle’ being sent back to Britain of citizenship

Aine Davis, from London, could be free to walk UK’s streets within days after serving a seven-year prison sentence in Turkey

www.telegraph.co.uk

Shouldn't this individual be removed from the streets permanently.

I'm not fussed what this individuals nationality is, so long as he is locked up until dead.

 

[GusB]

From the Telegraph:

Shouldn't this individual be removed from the streets permanently.

I'm not fussed what this individuals nationality is, so long as he is locked up until dead.

The bit you've quoted says nothing about why they were imprisoned and I have no knowledge about this particular case.

If they're a UK citizen and have served their sentence, what's the problem?

 

[najaB]

Shouldn't this individual be removed from the streets permanently.

Why? What has he done? Did it breach UK law and would the punishment for that crime have a whole life term as its penalty?

 

[hexagon789]

Why? What has he done? Did it breach UK law and would the punishment for that crime have a whole life term as its penalty?

He was convicted of being a member of ISIL amd serving as a fighter within a registered terrorist group under Turkish law.

He has previously been convicted in Britain of drugs and firearms offences.

And his wife has been convicted of "funding terrorist activity".

Just to provide some context

 

[Falcon1200]

The immediate answer is no, but the question then is where do they live instead ? Even having dual nationality is not necessarily a solution, it having recently been reported that a convicted sex offender was able to renounce their non-UK citizenship and thus remain here.

 

[najaB]

He was convicted of being a member of ISIL amd serving as a fighter within a registered terrorist group under Turkish law.

I'm not sure, but I believe the principle of double jeopardy would apply - he can't be tried here for the same offence that he's served a sentence for in Türkyie.

That said, he could be tried for a different crime.

He has previously been convicted in Britain of drugs and firearms offences.

Did he serve the sentence for those offences? If so then the matter is closed.

 

[yorksrob]

He chose to be a terrorist and as such he should not be allowed to live in Britain as a free man. Certainly not after a paltry sentence of seven years. Maybe after a sentence more befitting such crimes.

 

[Cloud Strife]

He chose to be a terrorist and as such he should not be allowed to live in Britain as a free man. Certainly not after a paltry sentence of seven years. Maybe after a sentence more befitting such crimes.

Remember that some very nasty terrorists were released under the Good Friday agreement, including around 150 serving life sentences.

He did the crime, he served the time. End of story, unless he's done something that would warrant additional prosecution in the UK.

He was convicted of being a member of ISIL amd serving as a fighter within a registered terrorist group under Turkish law.

Turkish law has peculiar ideas about who is and who isn't a terrorist. The Gulen Movement is one, for instance, although it's obviously a cult rather than a terrorist movement.

 

[Gloster]

To turn the question around. Two Britons are under sentence of death in ‘Russia’ (let’s not not have an argument about where they are being held). If Russia was to commute their sentence to life imprisonment and offer to allow them to serve it in the UK, would you refuse, expect them to serve a full sentence, or what?

 

[yorksrob]

To turn the question around. Two Britons are under sentence of death in ‘Russia’ (let’s not not have an argument about where they are being held). If Russia was to commute their sentence to life imprisonment and offer to allow them to serve it in the UK, would you refuse, expect them to serve a full sentence, or what?

I don't really see the relevance as they're serving officers in the army of a recognised country (an allied one at that).

If someone had committed a genuine crime in another country that warranted a life sentence, I wouldn't object to them serving it here as they wouldn't be at liberty.

 

[Yew]

I don't really see the relevance as they're serving officers in the army of a recognised country (an allied one at that).

So I do completely agree that they shouldn't have been found guilty. But technically they are "Convicted terrorists", as determined by a foreign court; just as Aine Davis is.

 

[yorksrob]

So I do completely agree that they shouldn't have been found guilty. But technically they are "Convicted terrorists", as determined by a foreign court; just as Aine Davis is.

I think there is a tangible difference where we recognise the court and recognise the gravity of the offence committed.

I wouldn't expect the UK to adhere to a sentence passed in another country for something like blasphemy, which we don't recognise as an offence. Committing atrocities on behalf of IS on the other hand, is very much something the UK recognises as a grave offence.

 

[rapmastaj]

From the Telegraph:

Shouldn't this individual be removed from the streets permanently.

I'm not fussed what this individuals nationality is, so long as he is locked up until dead.

This seems fairly similar to the reason why the US created Guantanamo Bay. As a place to dump people who they suspected might be terrorists, but who they didn't actually have enough evidence to charge and convict, and/or if they could have been convicted with particular crimes, the sentences wouldn't have been long enough to satisfy US desires.

As far as I am aware, the main results of Guantanamo were to indefinitely lock up and torture a bunch of supposed enemy combatants, to loosen the US administration's adherence to internationally recognised principles of 'rule of law', and to breed resentment and anger towards the US around the world.

Of course there is a vital difference. Some of those incarcerated in Guantanamo appear to have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time when US forces were nearby, while Aine Davis has been unequivocally convicted of a genuinely appalling crime. I can totally see the need for society to be protected from a former ISIS member, but I remain suspicious of any measure that goes beyond international law.

 

[najaB]

I can totally see the need for society to be protected from a former ISIS member, but I remain suspicious of any measure that goes beyond international law.

If he is going to be locked up on return to the UK then he needs to be convicted of a crime by UK authorities. The idea of indeterminate incarceration without trial is antithetical to every concept of British justice, the right to a fair trial goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.

 

[yorksrob]

This seems fairly similar to the reason why the US created Guantanamo Bay. As a place to dump people who they suspected might be terrorists, but who they didn't actually have enough evidence to charge and convict, and/or if they could have been convicted with particular crimes, the sentences wouldn't have been long enough to satisfy US desires.

As far as I am aware, the main results of Guantanamo were to indefinitely lock up and torture a bunch of supposed enemy combatants, to loosen the US administration's adherence to internationally recognised principles of 'rule of law', and to breed resentment and anger towards the US around the world.

Of course there is a vital difference. Some of those incarcerated in Guantanamo appear to have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time when US forces were nearby, while Aine Davis has been unequivocally convicted of a genuinely appalling crime. I can totally see the need for society to be protected from a former ISIS member, but I remain suspicious of any measure that goes beyond international law.

Our own court system has a mechanism for appealing/challenging unduly lenient sentences. Perhaps if the man in question is returned here, something similar could be undertaken.

 

[najaB]

Our own court system has a mechanism for appealing/challenging unduly lenient sentences. Perhaps if the man in question is returned here, something similar could be undertaken.

The issue there is that he hasn't been convicted in a UK court.

 

[Gloster]

Our own court system has a mechanism for appealing/challenging unduly lenient sentences. Perhaps if the man in question is returned here, something similar could be undertaken.

I may be wrong, but I have feeling that in the case of an appeal against a lenient sentence, judgement must be made before the earliest date that the parole process could start. Adding something on that wasn’t in the original sentence after it is completed is not possible. (I am no expert.)

 

[yorksrob]

The issue there is that he hasn't been convicted in a UK court.

Do we not have an extradition treaty with Turkiye ? If not, perhaps some sort of test of the trial evidence needs to take place.

I may be wrong, but I have feeling that in the case of an appeal against a lenient sentence, judgement must be made before the earliest date that the parole process could start. Adding something on that wasn’t in the original sentence after it is completed is not possible. (I am no expert.)

That might be an issue.

 

[AlterEgo]

That might be an issue.

No, the issue was pointed out by @najaB - he wasn't convicted here, so there is nothing for the Attorney General to review.

We can't arbitrarily convict someone of the same offence they've already been convicted for in another country, and we can't detain someone without due process.

Committing atrocities on behalf of IS on the other hand, is very much something the UK recognises as a grave offence.

For which he has already been convicted, imprisoned, and released.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If he is going to be locked up on return to the UK then he needs to be convicted of a crime by UK authorities. The idea of indeterminate incarceration without trial is antithetical to every concept of British justice, the right to a fair trial goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.

And it's worth pointing out that Turkey is not exactly the home of the fair trial. Turkey in particular is well known for using terror charges against political opponents, and for using such charges for government propaganda purposes.

This chap apparently was wanted by both the UK and US, but Turkey refused to extradite him. I suspect he'll be arrested as soon as he leaves the plane, but the point is that he should be subject to the justice process here as any other criminal.

 

[yorksrob]

No, the issue was pointed out by @najaB - he wasn't convicted here, so there is nothing for the Attorney General to review.

We can't arbitrarily convict someone of the same offence they've already been convicted for in another country, and we can't detain someone without due process.


For which he has already been convicted, imprisoned, and released.

If he's been convicted of the same offence in another country, and we believe that the sentence has been unduly lenient, there ought to be a mechanism for reviewing that sentence if he reaches British soil.

And it's worth pointing out that Turkey is not exactly the home of the fair trial. Turkey in particular is well known for using terror charges against political opponents, and for using such charges for government propaganda purposes.

This chap apparently was wanted by both the UK and US, but Turkey refused to extradite him. I suspect he'll be arrested as soon as he leaves the plane, but the point is that he should be subject to the justice process here as any other criminal.

Indeed. Let him have due process here, then if found guilty, the judge can subtract whatever he's already served from his sentence.

 

[najaB]

If he's been convicted of the same offence in another country, and we believe that the sentence has been unduly lenient, there ought to be a mechanism for reviewing that sentence if he reaches British soil.

Not if we continue to apply the principle of double jeopardy - that you can't be convicted twice for the same offence. Remember, this works both ways - if it didn't, a person given a suspended jail sentence in the UK for possession of class B drugs could find themselves facing the death penalty if they travel to Thailand.

 

[yorksrob]

Not if we continue to apply the principle of double jeopardy - that you can't be convicted twice for the same offence. Remember, this works both ways - if it didn't, a person given a suspended jail sentence in the UK for possession of class B drugs could find themselves facing the death penalty if they travel to Thailand.

That is an interesting example, and a troubling one.

I think from our case, we wouldn't be trying the individual over. We would be re-testing the evidence and adjusting the sentence according to our judicial norms.

It does seem strange for Turkiye to insist on trying him there and imposing a lenient sentence. Normally one would be wary of extraditing someone if they thought the receiving country was likely to give a lenient sentence.

 

[HullRailMan]

One for the human rights lawyers I think, they will be all over it if the authorities try to take action to manage the risk this individual poses. Remember, his right to a family life will trump your right not to be killed by him.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is an interesting example, and a troubling one.

I think from our case, we wouldn't be trying the individual over. We would be re-testing the evidence and adjusting the sentence according to our judicial norms.

No, you’d be re-trying him no matter what sort of word salad you try to use to justify it.

Why wouldn’t the Thai example of the death penalty also be the same? “Retesting the evidence and adjusting to Thailand's judicial norms”.

 

[najaB]

One for the human rights lawyers I think, they will be all over it if the authorities try to take action to manage the risk this individual poses.

Only if the authorities take shortcuts and don't follow the law.

 

[Gloster]

So are we going to bring a series of witnesses over from another country, make sure that they understand the differences in rules and procedure between the two countries, ensure that they give evidence, etc., according to UK standards (and what will happen if they don’t) and generally provide a trial to exactly the same level of proof, etc., as is expected in the UK? (And I am not saying that other countries have lower standards than the UK.) Is this really practical?

We just have to accept that unless you are going to have a system where the powerful prey on the weak, we have to live with the fact that the system is far from perfect. There are plenty around who would love to follow the D***y M**l and use the justice system to crush anybody they don’t like. All should be equal under the law: we may be far from that already, but we should resist any further moves away.

 

[Ediswan]

Only if the authorities take short cuts and don't follow the law.

I lost count of the number of times Abu Hamza al-Masri called out the authorities (mainly the home secretary) for acting outside of what was allowed by law.

 

[yorksrob]

No, you’d be re-trying him no matter what sort of word salad you try to use to justify it.

Why wouldn’t the Thai example of the death penalty also be the same? “Retesting the evidence and adjusting to Thailand's judicial norms”.

Well, it's not in the interests of this country to have violent jihadi's at large. Perhaps it's better that he is just barred from entry.

So are we going to bring a series of witnesses over from another country, make sure that they understand the differences in rules and procedure between the two countries, ensure that they give evidence, etc., according to UK standards (and what will happen if they don’t) and generally provide a trial to exactly the same level of proof, etc., as is expected in the UK? (And I am not saying that other countries have lower standards than the UK.) Is this really practical?

We just have to accept that unless you are going to have a system where the powerful prey on the weak, we have to live with the fact that the system is far from perfect. There are plenty around who would love to follow the D***y M**l and use the justice system to crush anybody they don’t like. All should be equal under the law: we may be far from that already, but we should resist any further moves away.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, if we had an extradition treaty with Turkiye, a lot of this would already be covered.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, it's not in the interests of this country to have violent jihadi's at large. Perhaps it's better that he is just barred from entry.

He can’t be barred from entry, he’s a citizen of here and nowhere else.