Cheerio then, Spitfire. I wish you well.
There have been two such cases to come to court in recent years - the court of appeal also quashed the convictions of six Iraqis who hijacked a Sudanese aircraft bound for Jordan fearing that they were about to be deported and would face certain death if they were. The trial judge ruled that the defence of duress of circumstances should not be left to the jury because there appeared to be no immediate threat of death or serious physical injury. This was, said the court of appeal, a misdirection - it was sufficient for the threat to be 'imminent'. Rose LJ gave the best example: 'If Anne Frank had stolen a car to escape from Amsterdam and been charged with theft, the tenets fo English Law would not, in our judgment, have deined her a defence of duress of circumstances, on the ground that she should have waited for the Gestapo to knock on her door." In cases such as these the court of appeal stated that juries should not be deined the opportunity to consider for themselves whether hijacking was in fact a proportionate response to the percieved threat.
The defence in the Afghani case was on the same basis - to wit, the hijackers were opponents of the Taleban regime and thought their lives in danger. The original trial judge ruled that their ought to be an objective threat of death or serious injury before the defence could be relied upon. In fact, the court of appeal ruled that it would be sufficient that the defendant perceives such a threat. Hence, the convictions were quashed, as the decision ought to have been left to the jury.
So, gentlemen, the point is this; in both cases these are issues that should have been left to the jury to decide, not the judge. Had the jury been allowed to consider the defence they may have convincted, they may have not - it is not for us now to decide.
It amuses me to see how you lot apply certain double standards: on the one hand, if a journalist writes a story about aviation or there's an accident of some sort, 99% of you rush out to say how we should not prejudge, how we should wait until all the facts are known, how those outside the industry cannot possibly know enough to have any sensible views on the subject, and yet when it comes to legal matters the barrack room lawyers come out in force to denounce the law as being in favour of convicts, criminals and the Evil Wrongdoers of Ealing.
Certain principles are important. I subscribe to the view that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man should suffer. Do you all disagree? If so, what if you were the one innocent man?
Edited not to actually correct the typos but to apologise for them - I have had one glass of wine too many.