Stansted hijackers to be freed

[moggie]

maybe.........

Corny I know, but "one man's guerilla is another man's freedom fighter".

Most people here would have supported the French resistance during WWII (yes, there was some) and who would have argued that hijacking a german airliner to escape capture by the Gestapo would be wrong?

Moral minefield - and, I'm afraid, each case must be judged on it's individual merits.

By and large, I am adamant that it is wrong, but there are cases when I have SOME sympathy with the hijackers (as with the Afghan 727 case).

I doubt this will be popular, but there you are.

[Anti-ice]

So,The 9 Afghan man who staged the UK's longest Hijack of 3 days of the Ariana 727 in 2000, have all been cleared by the UK courts and are now set to earn up to £1MILLION in compensation.
They will also probably have the right to stay in the UK,having now claimed asylum.

Having boarded the flight armed with explosives,guns and every intent to hijack the plane ,they then threatened to KILL all onboard.

The situation has cost the UK£36M already.

The Shadow transport secretary has said that
"the controversial Court of Appeal ruling has send out a "dangerous message" and added
"My concern is that this may be sending out a signal that somehow Britain has become a soft touch on hijacking.
This will put both UK airlines and UK airports at risk.
It is the resonsibility of all of us in authority in the UK...to send out a signal that there is no justification, no excuse and no defence for acts of hijacking."

ABSOLUTE LUNACY What on earth will english law come up with next ????
If Afghanistan is a safe place to go now, then b****y well send them back without a penny,with their heads hanging in shame.
They were 'escaping' from the taliban, well there is no taliban now, so get them out.

The message this sends affects OUR safety and security in the aviation industry, and i am astounded this conclusion has been reached.
Nice to know that we are now financing people to hijack planes.
So much for the war on terrorism.- We're now encouraging it.

I am sick and tired of people chanting the 'Human Rights' mantra for EVERY thing that happens nowadays. There is no excuse, no matter how emotive, for carrying out a plane hijacking, especially in today's era of terrorist atrocities. HELLO, SEPT 11 .
This is just another opportunity to legitimise illegal immigration through any means available.
The British legal system has failed its people again and sent out the wrong message to the world.
If these criminals get compensation,then only this country could, do something as mindbendingly stupid as that.
If they do, then WE the UK taxpayer should collectively sue THEM for the £12M costs.

UNBELIEVABLE.

[Paterbrat]

This is a Kafkaesque situation where one is reduced to hoping that it is media hype and not in fact reality.

I truly hope that this farcical situation is resolved in a manner that does not simply confirm everybodies worst fears about the bizarre state of our immigration policies and law courts.

[Andu]

Immediate threat to life, ie, government agents lining up to kill me and my loved ones, and my very survival depends upon my diverting an aircraft to a safe port? As unfashionable as it might be to say so on a forum like this, I have to say I might consider hijacking an aircraft in such a situation and damn the consequences, (which I’d have to assume might be grave, involving, at the very least, some considerable gaol time or eventual extradition).

But flying on to a second or third destination until I get to one that offers a ‘best option’ and then threatening to kill all on board unless I was granted asylum in said country of choice? I think a line has been doubtlessly crossed in the latter situation that simply can’t be accepted by any right-thinking person.

It’s often been said that “the Law’s an ass”, and maybe it is. However, I suspect that much of the blame in situations such as this one can be placed squarely at the feet of unscrupulous practitioners of the law, who cynically see for themselves an ongoing nice little earner representing such people in endless appeals – and the taxpayer foots the bill for the considerable legal fees they charge, which are covered under the provisions of Legal Aid.

[foxmoth]

Personally I agree with most of Mogies post which is why I went "maybe" in the poll - but I also STRONGLY agree that in this case, with the Afghan hijackers, they did NOT have the right to continue beyond Russia and THEN they should have surrendered as SOON as they got on the ground.

[Slim20]

I think everyone's missed Pilot Pete's point which was that the ruling does not condone hijacking. It means a clever lawyer has got his clients off because of a legal technicality on appeal.

Such is the logic of the law system in this country, the crime is no longer an issue with regard to correct legal procedure. The original trial judge didn't follow correct procedure - therefore the appeal judge had very little option but to quash the original sentence.

It's not about politics or senility or legalising hijack - it's just the law.

[Chocks Wahey]

It's ok to hijack...........

............but only if you wish to take advantage of the non existant asylum policy in this country. These people are free loaders of the worst kind. An asylum seeker is someone who seeks asylum in a safe country, free from the persecution that they have suffered in thier own country. To call these people asylum seekers is an insult to those that have fled from genuine persecution.

Rant over.

[Paterbrat]

Both Slim and Chocks highlighting again very valid points. With appologies for thread drift, consider the appeal for asylum for Saddam's daughters in the UK?? but in light of the open door policy can you blame them for trying. Incredible as it may seem they may well end up here, they have the money and some obliging smart layer and Bob's your uncle... talking of whom, can you imagine Bob Mugabe heading over here when his own population realise what an unmitigated disaster he has been for the country and turf him out. Why ever not? He's got plenty of cash, probably use the same lawyer.

The law we are told must be upheld. How sad that the spirit of the law is so often trashed by the acrobatic and well oiled manipulations of some 'gentlemen' who practice it so well. I have no doubt that there are countless men of integrity and honour who do their utmost to uphold and promote UK Justice, there are a few who make a mockery of it.

[Lawyerboy]

Gentlemen.

Pilot Pete has hit the nail very squarely on the head. These men were freed because their convictions were unsafe. Mistakes were made at their trial. Had those mistakes not been made, the defendants may very well not have been convicted. That is the point, no other.

Whether it is ever right to use force when faced with duress, what levels of duress one is supposed to put up with before violent action is permitted, whether violent action is in fact ever permitted, are entirely different, albeit valid, questions.

It is a fundamental principle in the UK that one is presumed innocent until one is proven guilty. That doesn't simply mean that there has to be sufficient evidence to prove guilt, but that the correct process in presenting that evidence must be followed to prevent abuse. Those of you screaming that 'the law is an ass!' would do well to remember that not everyone charged by the police or prosecuted by the CPS is actually guilty of an offence, and everyone - EVERYONE - deserves to be dealt with fairly and properly. And yes, some of us do actually believe that such principles are important enough to justify the odd unpalatable result.

Yours ever
LB.

[Paterbrat]

Lawyerboy I think that posibly the outcry is because there appeared to be no mistake that the people concerned commited the act they were sentenced for.

It appears that the law 'was indeed an ass' which is why they are being freed, due to a technicality, and indeed unpalatable.

Yours in return PB

[Heliport]

Lawyerboy

Does a mistake in a trial necessarily mean people convicted are let out on appeal?
These men hijacked the 727 on an internal flight, didn't surrender when it landed in Russia and ordered the pilots at gunpoint to fly to Britain. They were armed with four guns, a knife and two hand grenades, held the police at bay at Stansted for three days making threats to kill passenegrs and blow up the plane despite assurances from the British authorities that they were safe.

Couldn't the Court of Appeal have said they were satisfied the trial judge's error in the trial didn't make any difference to the verdicts because unless the jury consisted of 12 half-wits they were bound to be convicted anyway?
(I realise there must have been some oddballs on the first jury because they couldn't reach agreement, but the jury convicted the men unanimously in the retrial.)

[terryJones]

Rather than spend any more of OUR money arguing the rights & wrongs of it, lets just pick them up at the gates of the prison, ship them to the closest airport, and thence back to their contry of origin. I feel that any 'Rights' they had were forfeited by their actions. Ask some of the PX on the original 'plane what should be done with them.....

[Legalapproach]

Heliport

No. The Court of Appeal could have ordered a re-trial if they had considered it to be in the interests of justice to do so.

The test for the Court of Appeal was not whether there had been some irregularity in the trial but whether the convictions were unsafe as a result. The Court can decide that despite a misdirection the convictions are safe.

However, on the facts of this case (which I know a bit about) the misdirection was a fundemental one that went to the heart of the defence.

The issue at the original trial was whether the hi-jackers acted under duress and were therefore justified in their actions. A lot of the evidence that was collected prior to the trial and in Afghanistan pre the appeal showed what a barabaric and atrocious regime the Taliban were. Certainly we and the US appeared to be satisfied that we were justified in going to war with them. The ruling of the Court of Appeal does not legalise highjacking nor make Britain a soft touch. Had the summing up not been defective the jury would have been able to consider the defence properly and fairly. Had they convicted the convictions would have been safe. If such a case were to arise again, the correct directions would be given and safe guilty or not guilty verdicts would ensue.

I agree with Moggie's earlier comment and with the benefit of hindsight wouldn't you agree that a group of jews would have been justified in hijacking an aircraft in Germany in say 1938 or 39 in order to flee to England?

Datcon

I don't know Cox but Hooper's ('Super' Hooper) reputation is as a highly intelligent, fair judge. He is no soft touch and spent much of his career at the Bar as a prosecutor.

What is a liberal judge? My dictionary defines liberal as 'open-minded, candid, unprejudiced'. Admirable (although rare) qualities in a judge wouldn't you agree??

[Lawyerboy]

Peterbrat - that's just my point. You might not like the result, but that result is better, at lease some might argue, than the possibility that 'technicalities' such as incorrect procedure in adducing evidence are overlooked because 'everyone knows they did it.'

Heliport - I'm not a crimilar lawyer, I don't know precisely what constitutes an usafe conviction and what doesn't. The court of appeal decision would appear to suggest that the errors committed at the original trial were such that there is a possibility that the defendants would not have been found guilty. Even were that not the case, if an error is serious enough the principle remains the same; you are either convicted beyond reasonable doubt, or you are acquitted. There is no - and ought not to be - a middle ground.

Here's one for you all to think about; in certain circumstances, a court will accept a majority verdict. ie, even if say two of the twelve jurors do not think the defendant is guilty, the court will convict on the basis that the other ten jurors do. Personally I have a problem with that insofar as if two of twelve jurors are unconvinced (that's nearly 17% of the jury) then is there not a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty?

[Paterbrat]

It appears therefore that 83% versus 17% wins, and 17% is not considered 'reasonable'!!

And doing the crime would in my book warrant doing the time whether there was an admin fault or not.

[spitfire747]

the fact of the matter is that this government is so intent on not being thought as as racist in any form, they will go to such rediculous measures to ensure "good thoughts" for them through out the poorer countries. I would not be surprised if the hijackers are now living in council supplied homes in north london, eating food from food vouchers, wearing nice new clothes and enlisted for every single benefit under the sun.. lives of luxury and all paid for by us, not the right honourable President blair, or Cherry Blair, no you and me and other hard working under paid people.
this country is a joke, it is dangerous and a horrible place to live, i am almost at the end of the JAR CPL route, wish now i hadn't, should have gone to the USA to live.

England may once again regain itself and no longer be seen as an easy touch.. when ... who knows

[Lawyerboy]

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.

[Flying Lawyer]

Lawyerboy
Your summary of the legal position (and what went wrong in the trial) is of course correct, and it's certainly very frustrating when people say things about the legal system/lawyers which are totally incorrect - if you think this is bad, don't even think of venturing into JetBlast - but aren't you being just a little harsh in this instance? We're on an aviation website where some contributors might be the very people who'll be looking down the wrong end of a gun in the next hijack.

Legal issues aside, I don't feel any sympathy for these hijackers. Firstly, having escaped they could have surrendered when they arived in Moscow, but they preferred the idea of coming to England and forced the crew at gunpoint to fly them. Secondly, having arrived here and having been assured they were safe, they nonetheless continued to keep the crew (and those passengers not in on the plan) prisoner for three more days. Three days must seem rather a long time when you're being held captive by hijackers threatening you with guns and grenades and you have no idea whether you'll live or die. It's a far cry from the Anne Frank stealing a car to escape.

I think they were far luckier than they deserved.

[Lawyerboy]

FL - for what it's worth, I think they were ridiculously lucky and ought to have been convicted. Had the jury been left with the decision whether to convict or not there is every likelihood that they would have done so.

Harsh? Perhaps a little; this just happens to be a particular bugbear of mine, but in any case here endeth my rant on the matter. Apologies for hijacking the thread

[Paterbrat]

So the general opinion would appear to remain that they in fact did commit the crime. Did exceed what might reasonably been reckoned to have been refuge, did unreasonably hold by force for three days a plane load of people, and were extremely lucky to get off, that a jury would probably have convicted them and yet still were released. Hardly a nod and a winking matter I would have thought. That is why LB there was such a bloody uproar, because it is obvious to even the most simple minded person in the land that after a massively costly trial they have been released due to a cockup by the legal profession who are supposed to see to it that we all sleep safely in our beds.
Just one more example of what is happening in the halls of 'Justice'
Harsh, you must be joking. Hardly a joking matter though and you were right about one thing it was truly riduculous.