Stansted hijackers to be freed
 

BBC reports that the Afgan hijackers of a 727 back in 2000 that ended up at Stansted have been released on appeal. It appears to be on a point of law.


full story here


from the BBC report

Afghan hijackers freed on appeal


The plane was diverted to Stansted
The nine men found guilty of the hijack of an Afghan airliner have had their convictions quashed at the Court of Appeal in London.
Brothers Ali and Mohammed Safi - who had been accused of leading the hijack - were jailed for five years in January last year.

They told their trial they were fleeing persecution by the Taleban.

Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Hooper and Mrs Justice Cox ruled the convictions were "unsafe" because the law relating to whether the men had acted under duress had been wrongly applied at their trial.

The Crown Prosecution Service has already indicated it will appeal "on a point of law" to the House of Lords.

The appeal judges said they would give their reasons for the ruling at a later date.

They hijacked a plane, that's certainly correct, but... they were still acting under the force of the duress

Richard Ferguson
For the men

Six of the other men received sentences of 30 months, with the youngest accused getting a 27-month sentence.

The cost of the incident, including two trials, a huge police cordon at Stansted, and disruption to the airport and business was thought to have to have reached £12m.

But there have been estimates that the total cost of the legal process for the men amounted to £20m.

The men had given themselves up after a 70-hour siege at Stansted Airport in Essex.

Escape bid

The Afghan Ariana Boeing 727 had been diverted during an internal flight in Afghanistan in February 2000.

The men were convicted at the Old Bailey in December 2001 of hijacking the plane, false imprisonment, possessing firearms with intent to cause fear of violence and possessing explosives.

They had said they were escaping persecution from the Taleban regime, and all are reported to have applied for asylum in the UK.

The ruling means the Safi brothers, 37 and 35, the only members of the group still in custody, are likely to be released imminently.

Abdul Shohab, 21, Taimur Shah, 29, Kazim Mohammed, 28, Nazamuddin Mohammidy, 28, Abdul Ghayur, 25, and Mohammed Showaib, 26 have all been released already.

Richard Ferguson, representing the Safis, said: "There was an onus on the defence to prove duress and that's where the legal debate centred and that's really the basis of the Court of Appeal's decision."

Taleban fears

He told BBC News 24: "The factors involved in this case were that these men were escaping from the Taleban regime.

"They hijacked a plane, that's certainly correct, but their case all along was that thereafter they were still acting under the force of the duress.

"They could not give themselves up at any earlier stage because of the fear of being returned to the then Taleban regime in Afghanistan and because of that the hijack was prolonged."

The original trial judge had said the men's action "was brought about by fear of death at the hand of a tyrannical, unreasoning and merciless regime".

But he argued it had changed in nature at Moscow Airport when the hijackers refused to release hostages who did not share their objective of reaching Britain.

And he said they had prolonged the 70-hour standoff at Stansted for political reasons.

The prosecution had said the men were armed with four guns, a knife and two hand grenades, and that they threatened to kill passengers and blow up the plane.


PP

It seems that armed hijacking of aircraft is now legal in the UK according to the courts!!!! In my opinion, hijacking, armed or otherwise and for whatever reason is ILLEGAL and the people who commit this crime should be put in jail and the key thrown away. The judge who freed these men requires his head examining as he is obviously not sane. I just don't know what this country is coming to. :mad: :mad: :mad:

CC

English law has I am affraid just become the Laughing stock of the world. We are sending out the message that you can hijack an aircraft and fly into Britain and get away with it........
as long as you remember to pay your council tax when you get here that is, because if you forget to do that then you will go to jail! :*

Last week we had a new motion tabelled in the House of Commons for increased punishments and sentences for those that endanger an aircraft - ie drunks, violent behavior etc etc.

This week the Law Lords, in their oh so infinete wisdom decide that it is now legal to hijack an aircraft. What kind of message does this set out to would be terrorists? It just goes to show how out of touch our judges are. Mr Blunkett was spot on with what he said about them recently.

I call upon the highest judge in the land to sack the Judge concerned and the hijackers to be put back in prison.

The men who HIJACKED a B727 passenger airliner using VIOLENCE and THREATENING behaviour, forced it to fly into UK airspace and land at Stansted airport have had there convictions quashed.

The United Kingdom government has now set an extremely dangerous precident. It says in no uncertain terms that if you wish to flee from a country or dictatorship or religiously fanatical regime, you have a chance of a new life free from death threats, beatings etc in the UK. All you have to do is get a gang of like minded individuals and hijack an airliner. Once you have commandered the vessel, instruct the crew to fly to the UK. When you land, claim asylum. You will go to court, you will be charged with hijacking an airliner. While your case is being prepared your asylum request is also being processed. You will be be convicted of the offence, but there is now a very very strong case for your defence that you were fleeing death and like the Stansted hijackers it was your only way out. Your conviction will now probably be quashed and your asylum claim accepted. You are now no longer a criminal and are free to go.
Leave the jail, pick up the keys to your newly acquired council flat,
on the way to it in a taxi, ask the driver to stop at the local job centre so that you can pick up your housing benefit, your crisis loan and jobseekers allowance.
Now armed with some cash travel on to your new council flat. Upon entering you are pleasantly surprised to find furniture and electricity and running water and not two minutes have passed when there is a knock at your door. Its your friends who hijacked the airliner with you!! They have also had their convictions quashed and are very happy to see you. It worked, it worked they all shout, dancing and whooping and cheering. We even get money!!! There is no need to get a job when we are getting paid all of our benefits. So the UK taxpayer ends up footing the bill once again, thats you and me folks!!

What a f***ed up country we live in. :*

Question???- If this hijacking had happend post 9/11 and pax had intervened (as i think they would) maybe killing or injuring the hijackers would the pax then be charged with murder or GBH as the hijackers it seems had commited no offence??

Just a thought!!

Mr Ferguson appears to specialise in air industry cases. He defended REM star Peter Buck in his drunken air rage attack. Some of his other other laudable cases include defending Rosemary West and the killers of PC Blakelock, on the London Broadwater Farm Estate, in 1985.
Incidentally his practice has a website.

Seven of them were released before this appeal in any way, having served their poultry 27 to 30 month sentences.

If their sole aim was to escape Afghanistan, they would have given themselves up on arrival in Moscow. But no: having made it to Russia, they then demanded to go to an even nicer country.

send them home
 

Now that the Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan, I don't see where this is a solid arguement. Send them home to meet their relatives. I'm astonished the U.K courts bought duress as an arguement. These people hijacked a fricking Airliner and they admit it !!

Does that mean if anyone of us is late for an important assignment, we can hijack a plane to Las Vegas and claim we were under duress? And then get off for the crime? That's the mesage I'm hearing and it sure as hell is a very dangerous precedent.

Newark

I just cannot believe this latest judgement!

Why no statement from BALPA in the media?

Roll on the revolution - the Brits must be the laughing stock of the world!

To quote saying I hear day and day out about what is happening in this country:


‘Were will it all end?’

Haven't you guys learnt anything?:(

I just fail to understand what kind of justice system we have in this country. This just about says it all....makes you wanna give up. Wonder why we bust our backsides struggling to become aircrew in the first place.....so we can be a taxi service for this kind ***m

The UK has spent many years cultivating the reputation for a country that gives no quarter to terrorism. The Iranian Embassy siege was a watershed, sending a clear signal that anyone who plans a terrorist operation in the UK stands a very high chance of failure or death. Similarly, all hijacks that have happened in the UK have ended here with a satisfactory outcome.

And now this. A clever lawyer, a state prosecution service that can’t make the simplest of cases stick, and a woefully misguided judiciary have all conspired to demolish the life’s work of many fine people. We stand by, completely powerless, while a section of humanity intent on the deaths of anyone who doesn’t support their team, destroy our World using our laws and our liberalism.

I despair, I just despair.

Even if the legal argument can be applied to the escape from Afghanistan , how can it be applied to the susequent flight from Moscow to Stansted, and then to holding the passengers and crew hostage for four days once they got here.

newarksmells, I think you may be misrepresenting the situation when you sayRecent events, especially in the south and east of the country would indicate that the Taliban are still a force to be reckoned with, allegedly supported by the weakness of Pakistan to take any action with regard to cross-border activity. At the end of April two American soldiers were killed by a group thought to consist of 800 pro-Taliban forces.

However, IMHO that does not support the case that these people would still be "at risk" if they were returned to other areas of Afghanistan.

In cases where a defendant is accused of the death of another individual, mitigating circumstances are frequently presented before the court, to "explain away" the reason why the defendant acted in the way he/she did. Whilst this often leads to a reduction in the severity of the sentence, it seldom results in a complete "Let off".

In this case, the defendants have every right to put before the Appeal court the reasons why they felt (and still feel) they were "at risk". It is then up to the judges to evaluate this evidence in support of their case. It will be interesting to read the full reasons for the Appeal Courts decision, if/when they are released. They have so far said that the trial judge made a mistake in his interpretation of the mitigating circumstances. In itself this does not make them innocent, but rather shows up once again the fallibility of the British justice system in relation to "benefit of doubt".

Joshua Rozenburg makes some interesting points in his analysis in today's DT.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2Fnjack123.xml

I am sure that Jack Straw must regret his statement after the event He ruled out the possibility of the passengers - some of whom are thought to have colluded in the hijack - remaining as asylum seekers. But more than 50 are still thought to be in the country as well as the hijackers.

Let us hope that he uses the full extent of his power to fulfill his determination!

Ever heard the saying "The lunatics are running the Asylum"?

Well, that's what we have now.

The law is an ass. Never a truer word.

If I may continue a little from Bumfichh,

Let's throw the possibility in the not too distant future of an "armed pilot" senario into the hijack equation? Pilot defending his/her aircraft versus desperate people (and I'm not making light of whatever conditions they may be trying to escape from, but a Jet is not a fast-track for asylum seeking).

Following this insane decision, would would the court support?:suspect:

Now they will probably sue for damages for false imprisonment , and win. No I'm not joking:*

We really are the laughing stock of the world. How the hell can a reasonably intelligent man, who has qualified in Law to the highest level, possibly think it is acceptable for an aircraft to be hijacked? It is this judge who should have been on board the 727 at the time of the incident. Let's see how he'd feel about the hijackers then.

There really are no words to sum up my anger and despair at our country's legal and political system. It is an absolute disgrace. It is a sad situation when we, not just as aircrew, but also as citizens, do not feel protected and supported by our own country's cr*p system.

I think I'll move to the Seychelles...

This is insane. Its a terrorists and criminals charter. How much longer are we law abiding, tax paying citizens going to have to put up with the commission hungry legal profession, presided over by the senile judiciary and governed by wishy washy incompetents, whom are only interested in spin and image.

Unless someone gets their act together Blairs days are numbered and hopefully a conservative party with strong no nonsence leadership will rectify the lunatic asylum called "great" Britain...Come back Thatcher all is forgiven :mad: :mad: :mad:

I dont feel protected from the scum of society and more, but by christ my feet wouldnt touch if i refused topay my TV licence.

There will be a right wing back lash unless things are sorted out.History has a tendency to repeat its self with monotonous regularity, and our so called educated leaders dont be able to see this. Its examples such as this that have given credence to those thugs called the BNP

As a man with a family, I have to admit to having more than a little sympathy for anyone caught in the terrible situation any Afghan with a mindset that is post-14th century CE must have found himself (and particularly herself) in during the Taleban years. However, (there’s always an ‘however’), I do have a slight problem with the fact that, (laudable as this is), these people seemed as focused on providing as good a life as was possible for their loved ones in flying all the way to the UK rather than stopping at the first safe port outside Afghanistan. Their actions bear a close parallel with the many from the same area who traipsed through five to ten safe countries before declaring themselves refugees in far off Australia.

Whilst it’s totally understandable for any man to try to get the best package on offer (or not on offer!) for his family, the sad fact remains (and this is something that seems to escape many well-meaning bleeding hearts who’ve never lived in the Third World) that if everyone who wants to live in the West is allowed to move there, the West will become exactly what these (economic?) ‘refugees’ are escaping from.

It’s not as though this hasn’t happened before. The Roman Empire wasn’t destroyed by marauding armies of armed invaders – it collapsed from within after many thousands of people from its conquered outer provinces moved to Rome to enjoy the better, easier life that was available there… until so many were sharing a slice of the all too finite cake, the cake was no more and Rome collapsed and Europe entered into what became known as the Dark Ages.

Don’t for one moment think it couldn’t happen again. Just try walking down the street in parts of Brixton late at night or catching a tube alone on certain lines at night and you might think we’re already there.

It will undoubtedly be painful for the people involved, but now that the Taleban have been removed from power, if the UK Government doesn’t send each and every one of the people who arrived on that aircraft back to Afghanistan, what in the world were our troops doing there putting their lives on the line for? - a bloody oil pipeline that has yet to be built?


Oh, did I really say that? Silly, silly me.

A very valid point pulse1 ! Their safety became assured when they first landed, perhaps it was their social security benefits and a better lifestyle that didn't become assured until they continued their flight to UK.

I am old enough (just) to remember the condition Britain was in at the end of the second world war. Fortunately, our young men and women did not take the easy option of running off to places that were in a better state-they stayed here or came back-rolled up their sleeves and started to turn it back into the decent place it is today.

There is simply no justification in all these people staying here because their own countries require rebuilding. They should get off their backsides, go home and create the sort of country they want.

...and before someone accuses me of xenophobia: The Germans set an even better example of rebuilding from nothing. Remember, they had seven bells knocked out of them by The Eighth Army Air Force, the Royal Air Force and others. They didn't just sit around complaining that the Americans weren't rebuilding their place fast enough (sorry Iraq!) and that no one was clearing up the litter in the streets. They got stuck in themselves!

The aircraft was heading to Karachi was it not? Therefore they were on their way out of Afghanistan as soon as they took off. Therefore there was NEVER ANY EXCUSE to hijack the plane.

So presumably UK aircrew can now refuse to operate any flight to a country from which people feel a justified desire to leave (eg Zimbabwe, Indonesia or China, to name but a few).

After all, your employer has under UK law a duty of care towards you, and it now appears that UK law permits the use of threats and force against people, as long as they are in command of a mode of transport. I think I'd worry if I drove a truck to and from Eastern Europe as well.

So given that the law will not protect you against assault or murder, how can a company force you to put yourself in harm's way?

Truly bizarre ruling.

Newswatcher
 

Believe it or not Newswatcher, the Taliban are very much out of power. I know there are bands of worthless thugs roaming the streets in Kabul, but for the 1st time in years girls are now allowed to go to school and people can actually listen to the music they as opposed to getting forced to listen to music the Taliban liked...

This British ruling is truly atrocious and ludicrous at best.


Newark

Jonny, Move to Greece, they seem to have got a fast track justice system in place. Also deports undesirables pretty quickly......

Although I was astounded by the decision myself, as are many others, I think it does need pointing out that this case sets no legal precedent, since it was on appeal that the original judge was found to have instructed the jury incorrectly. This is the reason for the successful appeal. A point of law is the layman's term for the reason for the overturned judgement.

I do not argue that point, but do agree that the duress argument should hold little water once we get beyond Moscow on the flight concerned. It does beggar belief.

PP

Yet one more disastrous episode in the sending of totaly inapropriate messages to criminals, hijackers and refugees. Court rulings can be overturned crime pays, and hijackers head for England !:yuk: :*

Isn't it the politicians who make the laws, not the judges - they just implement what the politicians decreed. So if people don't like the law then shouldn't they be having a go at the politicians rather than the judges?

Obviously I wasn't at the trial and I don't think the reasons for the judges' decision have been published, but I don't think that they ruled that it was OK to hijack an aeroplane; they ruled that the original judge make a mistake in assuming that the burden of proof was on the defence to indicate that the alleged hijackers were under duress rather than on the prosecution to prove it. Therefore, the subsequent conviction was unsafe, and it's now up to the CPS to decide whether they would like to retry them or not.

Guys...stick to airlaw.:p

I think if I stuck to my knowledge of air law, this would be a very short thread!

All I'm saying is that the judges are not condoning hijacking an aeroplane any more than the judges who ruled the convictions of the Birmingham Six are condoning blowing up pubs. They ruled that the convictions are unsafe, not that hijacking an aeroplane is OK.

Hi guys,
there is only one country daft enough to allow this to happen, that's why I don't live the UK anymore, no longer a good and decent place to live because of it's legal system which penalizes the good guys and rewards the bad guys. I wish the SAS had taken these barstewards out in the first place.
last one out turn the lights out!
ATB, PTC

RomeoRomeo, nice nick :)
I have no knowledge of British law, or the case in question.
So I'll keep quiet.

But guys, here in Europe it's the same.
So don't worry!
Your reputation as a nation is not at stake!
The people will always get angry with the judges.
:)

It may be that some judges there are just as wimpy as some of our US judges, for example, Judge Lance Ito, who was supposedly "in charge" of a very famous trial years ago in Los Angeles. Is it possible that various elements have covertly threatened the lives of certain judges, not long before the final decisions happen?

So, could I keep my nailfile from now on?

Can someone tell me why - if the Taliban were so evil that we had to have a war against them, how did they manage not to be evil enough that people fleeing Afghanistan might legally be refugees? BTW, I seem to recall from the time that there was some doubt as to whether the plane was indeed hijacked - some said that the crew were in on the idea from the beginning. I think it was a flight from Mazar-e-Sharif to Kabul.

Paterbrat, I am very sure that if you were to be tried in a country where "court rulings could not be overturned", we would soon get to hear your sorry mad-right whingeing about democratic standards, justice, etc - because you would in that case have no right of appeal! Court rulings can be overturned in any country that has a civilised system of justice on appeal to a higher court - this is a basic principle of natural justice. What a load of rubbish!

Steamchicken - you are well off the mark.
Yes the Taliban were evil, and of course we should give asylum to all in genuine need, and fleeing from that sort of oppresion. But you conveniently ignore some very important points.

These people had already reached a safe country - Russia. Under International law (the Geneva Convention I think), a refugee should claim Asylum in the First safe country they reach. They Didn't. Instead they used theat of violence to get the plane to the UK. Assuming that this is overlooked and we grant them asylum, that asylum is granted to protect them from the authorities of their government - not an amnesty from international law (Tokyo convention) or UK law.

If it looks like a duck flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck and should be treated as such (preferably with Orange sauce, but I digress). As Hijackers and should still be in prison. Their lawyer has allowed them to get away with it on a technicality and that you support this release of dangerous people such as this is concerning.

There is another, beter end to this situation. As the Taleban are no longer in power, surely we can now send these people home. That way the British taxpayer won't have to feed them if they serve more time in Chokey, and wont have to foot the bill for their compensation.

Steamchicken I am interested as to why you feel that these hijackers need special consideration, or was it only I who am rightwing mad. Actualy I do live where court rulings are unlikely to be overturned and justice is swift, I accept the rules under which I live, it goes with the turf. My comment, and indignation was for the message such a repeal will send. It was hijacking. It was with weapons. It was way beyond a simple fleeing from the country they were in. It went on for three days. They threatened to kill everybody on board even after they had reached England.
Your left wing PC opinions are regretfully as much an anathema to me, I tend however to keep that opinion to myself.

I heard someone say the other day that the 'people' who hijack aircraft to claim asylum in the uk away from a dangerous or poor country have a point and they can sympathise with them.

As much as i disagree with people living in danger or poverty(i wish it didnt happen)....hijacking an aircraft is saying that you deem yourself more important or valuable to the human race than the other 315 or so other people onboard! Regardless of the fact that there may be doctors, surgeons, pilots, firemen, policemen, women and children and families onboard. I ask the people who hijack these aircraft...'Explain how you are more important than ANY of these categories!!'

These people CANNOT get away with this. Look at the asylum seekers who come to the UK by land and sea for example! a few come into the UK and get the softly approach and are granted asylum. The rest of the world gets wind of this and the spiral grows and grows and GROWS. And thats not to mention what sort of a message terrorists get from this. I bet they are thinking 'hey if we arent successful in crashing hundreds of innocent people into a building then at least we wont even get prison!!'

This countries' government and legal system sickens me. I cant believe people are able to make such OBVIOUS bad judgements and get away with it. I thought these guys who make the judgements are supposed to be lords! They appear to be the most ill-educated people in Britain.

Sorry for moaning but im sure most of you feel the same way.

Its disgusting these people have been let off. In light of the direct threats of Al Qaeda at the UK i feel much less safer in my job than i used to.

Cheers
Dave