• BBC wins right to interview UK terror suspect held for 7 years without trial
    14 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16512907[/url] [quote=BBC News][b]The High Court has ruled that Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was wrong to stop the BBC filming a terrorism suspect held for seven years without trial.[/b] The court said there was public interest in interviewing Babar Ahmad, due to the case's exceptional nature. The Justice Secretary had argued an interview was not necessary to inform the public about Mr Ahmad's story. The British Muslim denies terror-related charges and is fighting extradition to the US. After the ruling, the justice secretary said he would not be appealing against the verdict and would now begin negotiations with the BBC about how and when the interview would take place. The 38-year-old south London man has been held in prison pending extradition since 2004, believed to be a record for an unconvicted British citizen. He is awaiting a final decision on his case by the European Court of Human Rights. Mr Ahmad is accused of fundraising for extremists and other offences, all of which are said to have been committed in the UK. He has never been charged or faced trial in this country and denies any wrongdoing. Last year, more than 140,000 people [url=http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/885]signed an official government e-petition[/url] calling for him to be tried in the UK, leading MPs to include his case in two Parliamentary debates. At the High Court hearing last year, the BBC argued that the Justice Secretary had the power to restrict journalists' access to prisoners - but he had been wrong to turn down an application from reporter Dominic Casciani to film Mr Ahmad. Lord Pannick QC, for the BBC, said that the refusal to allow an interview breached the journalist's freedom of speech as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In their judgement, Mr Justice Singh and Lord Justice Hooper said: "The [interview ban] constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression in Article 10. In the circumstances of this particular case, the justification for that interference has not been convincingly established. "The claimants have demonstrated on the evidence before the Court that they do require a face-to-face interview with Mr Ahmad." Counsel for the Justice Secretary had argued that allowing BBC cameras into prison would open the floodgates to many more such stories. But the court said Mr Ahmad's case was "far from ordinary" and there was public interest in seeing and hearing from Mr Ahmad. "It is difficult to think of a case which would fall within the exception if not for the present case," said the judges. "We make it clear that we do not consider that the present case should be regarded as setting any precedent for other cases. "The crucial question is whether in the very unusual circumstances of the present case, when taken together, an exception must be made. We have come to the conclusion that it must." After the ruling, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement saying the length of time taken in the Ahmad extradition case was "unacceptable", and blamed a backlog of 150,000 cases at the European Court of Human Rights for the delay. It highlighted that the judge had upheld the Prison Service's general policy on refusing media interview requests with prisons unless there were "exceptional circumstances".[/quote]
BBC is a winner right there.
This is the one thing that's keeping me from moving to the UK, the justice system is worse than America's. [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] God, you people are thick. The UK justice system can hold someone under suspicion of terrorism, and do that legally. The American justice system does similar things, but it isn't necessarily legal, or constitutional. The American justice system, or what it was designed to be, is better than most country's justice systems. If Americans weren't stupid, the system would blow away any other country's by far.
[QUOTE=Sam 01 1;34162140]This is the one thing that's keeping me from moving to the UK, the justice system is worse than America's.[/QUOTE] We don't want more immigrants corrupting our British values anyway [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] Fish and chips
[QUOTE=Sam 01 1;34162140]This is the one thing that's keeping me from moving to the UK, the justice system is worse than America's.[/QUOTE] No. And the reason he's there in the first place is the American justice system...
History will not be kind to us(countries holding people without due process of law). In the future people will rightfully look back on these times and ask "What the hell were they thinking?" just as we look back on times like the slavery era and wonder the same thing about those people.
[QUOTE=Sam 01 1;34162140]This is the one thing that's keeping me from moving to the UK, the justice system is worse than America's.[/QUOTE] But it's America's wonderful justice system that has put him in this situation..
I think I asked this in the last thread about this subject, but why the hell does America want him? What did he actually do, or is being accused of doing to America? Surely if he's suspected of being a terrorist in the UK, it's none of America's business?
[QUOTE=st_nick5;34164731]I think I asked this in the last thread about this subject, but why the hell does America want him? What did he actually do, or is being accused of doing to America? Surely if he's suspected of being a terrorist in the UK, it's none of America's business?[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]allegations of involvement in websites supporting Chechen and Afghan insurgents.[/quote] Presumably funding Afghan insurgents counts as attacking America
[QUOTE=smurfy;34164792]Presumably funding Afghan insurgents counts as attacking America[/QUOTE] Oh. Well, I still think that they should have just left the UK to deal with him. He wouldn't have had seven years of his life taken away from him if he was found innocent then.
[QUOTE=st_nick5;34164824]Oh. Well, I still think that they should have just left the UK to deal with him. He wouldn't have had seven years of his life taken away from him if he was found innocent then.[/QUOTE] UK has never charged him [quote]He has never been charged or faced trial in this country and denies any wrongdoing.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sam 01 1;34162140]This is the one thing that's keeping me from moving to the UK, the justice system is worse than America's.[/QUOTE] It's your country that is responsible for him being held without trial for 7 years.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34165130]It's your country that is responsible for him being held without trial for 7 years.[/QUOTE] I'm just going to say its the UK government that is allowing this to happen
[QUOTE=Sam 01 1;34162140]This is the one thing that's keeping me from moving to the UK,[B] the justice system is worse than America's.[/B][/QUOTE] holy shit please say you are joking no , [b] seriously , you had better be joking [/b]
[QUOTE=viperfan7;34166085]I'm just going to say its the UK government that is allowing this to happen[/QUOTE] Without breaking a lot of treaties they have no choice. Its the US government that wants him, tell me the Canadian government would not do the same for the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.