Of course he should be allowed to appeal his conviction

One of Britain’s most dangerous al-Qaeda terrorists is seeking to have his conviction overturned on human rights grounds, The Telegraph can disclose.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader of a suicide plot which could have killed 10,000 people, has gone to the European Court of Human Rights to claim his human rights were infringed by publicity before he was convicted of conspiracy to murder.

He alleges the jury would have been prejudiced by media coverage of a previous trial.

That trial included the disclosure that Ali had recorded a “suicide video” saying his plot to bring down airliners with liquid bombs disguised as soft drinks was intended to “teach a lesson” non-Muslims “will never forget”.

He is currently serving a life sentence for leading the liquid bomb plot. Investigating and prosecuting the conspiracy has already cost the taxpayer more than £100 million, and Ali’s legal challenge will push the bill even higher.


Doesn’t matter
a toss how high that legal bill will go.

If he didn’t get a fair trial then he didn’t get a fair trial and we all start over. If he did then he’s in jail for the rest of his natural.

Shrug, this is just the way that we do it. And the reason we do it for the scumbags is because we want it to be done with us if our turn comes to be tried. Really, it’s very, very, simple.

41 thoughts on “Of course he should be allowed to appeal his conviction”

  1. True Tim, very true…

    And this is another reason why we shouldn’t seek to deal with terrorists vi the judicial system, but treat them as they would be treated under military law & shoot them out of hand wherever we find ’em.

  2. So we must have secret trials because if there is any reporting of them it might damage the rights of the accused?

    Let’s turn that argument around and see if it plays as well for public figures accused of having sex with underaged girlies.

  3. A hundred million does make you wonder, doesn’t it? This is the sort of money you fight wars with, not criminal cases. And does make you wonder about the safety of convictions. To adapt a quote: All money corrupts & these sort of sums…? You can see why actual justice could become an insignificant inconvenience in the middle of all that dosh.

  4. I hope Julia, that you are aware that the American Homeland security scumbags list of types of domestic “extremists” (=to be treated as terrorists when the round-up comes– but they don’t quite have the balls to say that–yet) would include just about everybody who comments on this list–even Arnald.

    Be careful what you wish for cause you just might get it.

  5. Oh, and I agree that “he should be allowed to apply for an appeal”.

    There is, perfectly reasonably, a process to determine whether or not the appeal has any chance of succeeding before permitting the take-up of the courts time and our money. Just as there is a process the Procurator Fiscal (and the CPS) go through to determine whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction, before people are formally charged with an offence.

    He has, and the UK court system has said (rightly in my opinion) that his grounds for appeal are inadequate bollocks.

  6. And this is another reason why we shouldn’t seek to deal with terrorists vi the judicial system, but treat them as they would be treated under military law & shoot them out of hand wherever we find ‘em.

    Don’t be fucking stupid.

  7. The CPS should review their charges etc before trial since they are the accusers.
    Pre-determining an appeal is denying it. Lots of poor stitched up bastards–from the Guilford Four to Barry George –would still be unjustly rotting inside if powers that be had their way. Always, SE, the assumption seems to be that you will never be in this situation so who cares about these people. Lets hope you are right. But all those stitched up by the authorities were once people like you, serenely going about their business with no thought that such a thing could happen to them.

    Tim is correct -this bloke should have his appeal heard.

    It is not clear to me that the “liquid bomb plot” was ever anything more than a pile of confabulated state bullshit designed to score another victory over terror for the clowns in the security service and their scummy masters (and, believe me, I say this as someone who has no time for jIhadi scum).As for the 100 million state organised waste–it is hardly the blokes fault that useless bureaucratic scum act as if cash grew on trees.

  8. Ah, another intelligent, well thought out rebuttal from UKliberty there…

    Mr Ecks, oh, indeed! “First they came for the Islamist scum..”, etc.

  9. JuliaM,

    Ah, another intelligent, well thought out rebuttal from UKliberty there…

    More intelligent and well thought out than your idiot suggestion people should be shot out of hand.

    For readers who are interested:

    We try people to determine guilt because the authorities (the police, the security services, the prosecutors) don’t always get it right. Google Lotfi Raissi for an example of how things can go wrong in the so-called War on Terror.

    We allow appeals because sometimes the people found guilty are in fact innocent.

    The European Court dismisses the vast majority of cases against the UK.

  10. It seems then Julia that you think that abandoning due process for one group is somehow not a licence for the scum of the state to start down the road to arbitrary tyranny with due process for none. If you can’t see that that is already happening here, in the US, Europe–everywhere progressive vermin are in the ascendant–, then you need to open your eyes double quick.
    As I said, your views are no more popular with the establishment than the islamics. Ok, you have not initiated any violence but so what. Most of the victims of evil regimes have never lifted a hand against those who persecuted and tormented them. You just have to have spoken out–and you already have. Again be careful what you wish for.

  11. Although I will take issue with this:

    “It is not clear to me that the “liquid bomb plot” was ever anything more than a pile of confabulated state bullshit designed to score another victory over terror for the clowns in the security service…”

    Let’s turn it around, shall we?

    “It is not clear to me that the tax charges were ever anything more than a pile of confabulated state bullshit designed to score another victory over Al Capone for the clowns in the security service…”

    Ah. That’s better! 🙂

  12. If ‘human rights’ applied to everyone, not just criminals then I might agree. As it is it seems that human rights apply for criminals (at the taxpayers expense naturally), but if you’re a taxpayer the State can ride right over you with impunity. Ask that family whose business was ruined by HMRC lying through its teeth in court. What human rights do they have?

  13. £100 million! Srsly? Sounds like a mega legal aid scam to me. After all, these stupid nutters tend to leave martyrdom videos where they confess their crimes, and when they are caught tend to have the weapons at hand. Doesn’t sound the most complex case the CPS has ever had, does it?

  14. Jim: “…but if you’re a taxpayer the State can ride right over you with impunity. “

    Oh, yes indeed! Where’s Mr Ecks’ ‘useless bureaucratic scum (who) act as if cash grew on trees’ to be found then, eh?

  15. JuliaM

    “Ah, another intelligent, well thought out rebuttal from UKliberty there”

    Yes indeed it was; succinct and perfectly weighted. You really deserve no more.

  16. As far as tax charges go I’m on Capone’s side. His crimes lay only in the killings he did. Supplying the public with goods they want but which political scum said they should not be “allowed” to have makes him almost a hero in my book. He is not quite a hero because he was a violent thug but what is that compared to the 100s of millions killed by political filth in wars and straightforward “round ’em up” mass murders?

    PS The “tax” charges were shite as well–all taxation is theft.

  17. Yes, follow due process etc. nothing to see here.

    The odd thing is that solicitors for three others lodged the appeal a day late – chucked out. IIRC, the Home Office started deportation proceedings against some Jordanian bogeyman a day early, thinking his time to appeal had lapsed. Seems to me that the rules on time limits could do with some idiot-proofing (or lawyer-proofing if you prefer).

  18. £100 million! Srsly? Sounds like a mega legal aid scam to me. After all, these stupid nutters tend to leave martyrdom videos where they confess their crimes, and when they are caught tend to have the weapons at hand. Doesn’t sound the most complex case the CPS has ever had, does it?

    I don’t know how they got to £100 million, the Telegraph neglects to support the figure, and there seems to be a difference of opinion about the total sum, it could be £135m including the investigation and prosecutions.

    IIUC, there were three trials. At the first trial, the jury didn’t agree on charges of conspiracy to blow up aircraft. Seven of the eight accused admitted conspiring to cause a public nuisance. Three admitted conspiring to cause explosions and they were also found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

    Those three were tried again a year later and found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to murder involving liquid bombs. I guess the Crown really wanted convictions for the plot to blow up aircraft with liquid bombs.

    Another three of the eight were tried a year after that and found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

  19. Jim,

    If ‘human rights’ applied to everyone, not just criminals then I might agree. As it is it seems that human rights apply for criminals (at the taxpayers expense naturally), but if you’re a taxpayer the State can ride right over you with impunity.

    It’s inevitable that ‘human rights’ cases will tend to be brought by ‘social others’ (including criminals) but a number of cases have been brought by the honest, law-abiding and hard-working taxpayers [insert other cliches here]. There is, for example, a long-running battle in securing human rights protection for people in care homes.

    Ask that family whose business was ruined by HMRC lying through its teeth in court. What human rights do they have?

    If you don’t provide a reference, even a name, how can we look it up?

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    Shrug, this is just the way that we do it.

    No it isn’t, or it wasn’t and it shouldn’t be. Because what you are arguing for is government censorship. We didn’t do it because we were a free country made up of free citizens. Then our rulers decided that we could not be trusted with the truth and they had to control what we could be told.

    There is no evidence I know of that publicity makes a fair trial impossible. But endless supplies of try-hard lawyers who hate us and our freedoms will continue to work hard to make sure as many violent felons are free as possible.

    I don’t see why we should tolerate that much less pay for it.

    The give-away is in the fact that he is seeking an appeal to Europe (subtle clue Number One that his claim is bollocks) on human rights grounds (Number Two).

    This is not an issue of civil liberties. This is a matter of a tiny number of self-serving lawyers extorting money from the rest of us by making up reasons why we should not see proper justice done.

  21. ITBoy, thats the one exactly. It indicative that UKliberty has never heard of it. Anyone who has any consideration for the rights of taxpayers would know it immediately.

  22. It was discussed on this very blog in December 2012.

    And I looked in vain to see your comment on the UK and liberty. But you’d just posted a link to Bailii.

    Apart from the random abuse you have posted on this thread, do you have a comment on how this pertains to the increasing over-reach of state power?

    Noting, as is appropriate, that I’m on the Julia side of the fence from many of our co-commentators here. Albeit on a “let the guilty* bastard rot in prison” rather than the summary execution angle.

    * Yes, he’s been convicted. By a jury of his peers. A human right he’d not be keen to allow infidel** scum like us.

    ** It does surprise me the keen adoption of a church latin word by the maniac wing of the RoP.

  23. I’d be surprised if the ECtHR allowed Ali’s case. As I see it, the difficulty for the authorities is that, when the first trial ended, the press was free to talk about the all the charges, evidence etc, including the charge that the authorities would subsequently seek a retrial for – and he’s saying this prejudiced the retrial. I can understand why the authorities pursued it – they made a huge, huge deal out of the liquid bomb plot, it’s the reason why we have restrictions on liquids today, and I think BA was among those that claimed it cost them a lot of money (BA said ~£100m). The thing is, they didn’t have all the evidence at the time of the first trial that they did for the second – emails between the conspirators. There was a complaint at the time that the UK authorities were forced to act after someone linked to the plot was arrested in Pakistan (iirc), but our lot would have preferred to continue surveillance and gather evidence. But, it’s not as if Ali had got way scot-free – he was found guilty of serious charges at the first trial, just not guilty of a particular charge the authorities wanted.

    SE,

    And I looked in vain to see your comment on the UK and liberty. But you’d just posted a link to Bailii.

    That’s right – I didn’t claim I discussed it, did I? At that time I didn’t feel I sufficiently understood the case and I’m not sure if I do today.

    Apart from the random abuse you have posted on this thread, do you have a comment on how this pertains to the increasing over-reach of state power?

    Well, I’m appalled Brittain hasn’t been prosecuted for perjury and I’m shocked (but not surprised) we have this system whereby HMRC can apply for liquidation of a company and the directors don’t have a right to be heard. It is pretty shocking that a company and people’s livelihoods can be ruined like that. I see Bob Neill MP is in the corner claiming, among other things, the case breached their Article 6 right to a fair trial.

  24. If they are guilty.

    The liquid bomb caper was dodgy–right from the start there was a stink to it.Massive numbers of raids/ arrests—only eight went to the first trial and only three to the second. Not clear if suicide videos were that or if they were just idiots flapping their gums. Many so-called gang did not even have passports and the whole “build a liquid bomb on board a plane in flight”scheme is also iffy. The first jury did not accept that any of the eight were plane-bombers but found 3 guilty of conspiracy to murder–which could just involve gum-flapping. That sack of socialist shite John Reid was blowing hard at the time about why out traditional liberties should be abandonded in the face of such threats.
    Real jihadists need to be dealt with but this one needs to be looked at again–preferably by someone not up the arse of the UK/USA govts.

  25. Surreptitious Evil

    No, you’re not on the JuliaM side of the argument, because you don’t believe in summary justice, because you recognise it as the final desdtination of an unaccountable state.

    And just about everybody here is entirely in favour of throwing away the key to the cells of terrorist bastards, properly tried and convicted terrorist bastards that is.

  26. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “And just about everybody here is entirely in favour of throwing away the key to the cells of terrorist bastards, properly tried and convicted terrorist bastards that is.”

    Define “properly tried” for me. The problem here is not the broad outlines. About which we are in general agreement. The problem is that there is a small number of people determined to get and keep as many dangerous people on the streets as possible. Not just terrorists either but also murderers and so on. They will find some pretext or other to enable a like minded judge to creatively interpret the law so that they get what they want.

    There is no reason to allow this appeal. He has been properly tried and convicted. There is no reason for the rest of us to be forced to pay for it. That only enriches the lawyers. They should have been executed precisely so that there could be no such appeal.

    Now I think it is sad that some people get hard ons for murderers and so spend their lives trying to protect them. As some people clearly do. But as long as it is a private vice, I do not see the wider issue. However when they have free reign of my bank account to endulge if their creative lawyer-enriching job-creation scheme, that is a problem.

  27. SMFS

    No I won’t define it because it was a statement of very broad principle. To be contrasted with calls for summary justice.

  28. @ Ironman
    Not everybody here is in favour of throwing away the keys. Among the many arguments for capital punishment, such as the additional hundreds of innocent lives lost since its abolition compared with the *possibility* that Evans was innocent, is that is is less cruel than life imprisonment.

  29. Well “properly tried” has to include the right of appeal if you find new evidence or a point of law. The number of exonerations (some post-mortem) of duly tried and convicted criminals is enough for me to be against summary justice.

  30. Vote UKIP: get MILIBAND!

    Of course, he should have a right of appeal. But not to the ECHR, and preferably after the Human Rights Act has been repealed.

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Well “properly tried” has to include the right of appeal if you find new evidence or a point of law. The number of exonerations (some post-mortem) of duly tried and convicted criminals is enough for me to be against summary justice.”

    I am not in favour, in general, of summary justice. But the government is seeking another trial based on new evidence. Which would not be necessary if he had been hanged. He is arguing that letting us plebs know about what he wanted to do is preventing a fair trial. And so he should be free or something.

    He has had his day in Court. Publicity is not a bad thing. He should have been executed.

    I am unconvinced there have been many people shown to be innocent after execution. Although there are many people who want to think so. But certainly there have been many people killed or brutalised by people who should have been killed.

  32. …the additional hundreds of innocent lives lost since its abolition…

    if it could be demonstrated from the data that the death penalty saves lives, that would be a good argument. But it can’t.

  33. So Much For Subtlety

    PaulB – “if it could be demonstrated from the data that the death penalty saves lives, that would be a good argument. But it can’t.”

    Not only can it be so shown, it has. As you well know. But of course, people will split hairs and refuse to accept the evidence no matter what. Especially those people who get hard ons for murderers.

    But I propose a simple solution – we use their organs. The Chinese do it and no one seems to mind much. Then we may kill an innocent person or two. But we will save at least one life with every execution and perhaps as many as four.

  34. SMFS: I recall we discussed this once before. You came up with a cherry-picked study from the US, and I cited a proper study which explored the methodological reasons why different studies get contradictory results.

    A fair summary is that even using the quite extensive data available in the US, one can’t be sure what the effect of the death penalty is on homicide rates, but if one had to form a view from the data alone one would tend to think that the death penalty slightly increases the homicide rate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *