More Than Rough Justice

Skidmore style.

I am a law-abiding citizen. Always have been – mostly. Better get that one out of the way first.

This case raises some interesting scenarios.

“A father whose daughter was knocked down and killed by a failed Iraqi asylum seeker slammed British justice today after the asylum seeker was allowed to permanently stay in the UK.

Banned driver Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 33, left Amy Houston, 12, to die under the wheels of his Rover car and fled the scene following the accident.

But the Iraqi Kurd was today told he can stay in Britain after judges said deporting the dad of two would breach HIS human rights following a seven-year legal battle.

They ruled that as Ibrahim has married an English woman and had two children since the 2003 accident, his right to family life under the Human Rights Act meant he must stay in the UK — despite having a string of criminal convictions.

Today Amy's furious dad Paul slammed the decision as "perverse" and a "joke".

Engineer Paul, 41, from Darwen, Lancs, said: "What do you have to do to be deported? For seven years he has fought it and used every trick in the book to stay in the UK.

I'm really furious. I don't understand how he can be allowed to stay here after killing my daughter. He shouldn't be allowed to stay.

It shows what a sad state of affairs the country is in.

I've been battling for justice on my own for years now and what for? It has been for nothing. This is a perversity of our society. The whole country should be disgusted.

Basically what the judges are saying is that it doesn't matter how you act when you come here. You can kill, break the laws of the land but so long as you have a child when in the UK you can stay.

I work hard, play by the rules, pay my taxes and this is how I get treated. What does that say about politicians, our leaders and the legal system? It's a joke."

Judges sitting at the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber in Manchester rejected a final appeal by the UK Border Agency to have Ibrahim deported.

Ibrahim, who has convictions for drugs possession, burglary, harassment, criminal damage and theft along with a string of driving convictions, killed Amy in November 2003 after running off from the scene of the accident while she was stuck under the wheels of his car.

She was rushed to hospital but her dad was forced to turn off her life support machine after doctors told him she would never recover.

Since then Paul has campaigned for Ibrahim to be kicked out the country and begged judges at a recent deportation hearing to bring "my seven years of hell to an end" by sending the monster back to Iraq.

He added: "All he is is a criminal. He was before he killed Amy and he will continue to be one.

The Human Rights Act is for everybody, not just asylum seekers and terrorists. It just seems to be used to allow people to get what they want.

He says if he was deported he would be deprived of his right to a family life?

The only person deprived of a family life is me. Amy was my only family. He took that from me."

In a final plea to two senior immigration judges, Paul, who is divorced from Amy's mother, wrote: "Amy was my only child... due to medical reasons I am unable to have any more children.

Amy was and is my family, so my point is, it is my right to a family life that has been deprived and not Mr Ibrahim's.”

"Mr Ibrahim claims to be a family man but if it's your actions that define who you are and not your words, then offences for possession of drugs, burglary, harassment, damage to property and theft as well as driving convictions and my daughter's death, you could argue that Mr Ibrahim is a negative influence as a role model as a father.

"I cannot understand by letting Mr Ibrahim remain in the UK what benefits he could bring to society.

"Had he shown some real remorse for what he had done and not committed any more crimes, I could accept that this was just an accident.

"On the evening of November 23 2003 Mr Ibrahim struck Amy, he didn't kill her outright, she was still conscious.

"She was fully aware what was happening around her even though she had the full weight of the engine block of the car on top of her, she was crying because she was frightened and in a lot of pain ... he could have at least tried to help.

"Amy suffered for six hours before the doctors advised me to switch off the life support machine ... it was highly unlikely she would survive and if she was to live would be a 'cabbage'.

"The image of Amy taking her final breath, dying a foot away from me as I sat by her bedside holding her hand praying for a miracle will stay with me till the day I die.

"If the Human Rights Act is about fairness, then it must have balance. What about Amy's right to life under the act?

"Today you have the power to bring my seven years of hell to an end; you can bring closure and justice.

"You can stop Mr Ibrahim from destroying anybody else's life as he destroyed mine but most of all you can bring balance to the Human Rights Act.

"You can show the world that this act is not just for criminals, failed asylum seekers and terrorists but for everybody in society because without balance there is no justice."

Lawyers for Ibrahim argued that his human rights would be impinged if he was sent back to Iraq.”

On the surface, it is very difficult not to be sympathetic with the family of this little girl. I am sympathetic. But, things are not as easy or as straight-forward in this case – as in life.

My first reaction was to consider this famous case:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson6.html

Human nature being what it is, the idea of revenge against someone who has decimated your family is understandable. Sympathy for the victims of crime is understandable. Amy's Dad's frustrations and anger is understandable. His desire for some sort of retribution is understandable.

Crucially, these two scenarios, whist seemingly parallel, are not. On the one hand a foolish, irresponsible, negligent driver has run over a little girl. This is a human tragedy – made seemingly worse by his subsequent attempts to evade responsibility by failing to stop at the scene. This is deplorable. But, is it criminal? Yes. Is it murder, as in the Skidmore case? No, it is not.

Our sympathies for Amy's family should not extend to retribution simply because the perpetrator is an Iraqi asylum-seeker. Depriving his family of their husband/father is not going to bring Amy back. Dad's call for punishment does not, on examination, fit the crime.

However, should Ibrahim's situation change then the law should look at the changes in circumstances and act accordingly – to the point of throwing him out if that is warranted.

In Missouri, justice is sometimes easier to judge. There but for the grace go I. I think I might have cheerfully joined in with the Skidmore vigilantes. I would be very tempted to tell the media that despite rulings otherwise I would definitely kill anyone who did such to any of mine.

It's a fine line.

Darwin Awards

The Bad and the Ugly

News that John Darwin, seemingly the architect of a scam to extract money from an insurance company by pretending to be dead, has been remanded in custody should come as no surprise to enlightened observers of the English legal system.

Quick recap. John and his wife have swindled an insurance company and the government out of a considerable sum of money. On the plus side – no-one has been seriously hurt. No-one is dead. No-one is ill, destitute or dying as a result of what is, at the bottom line, a fairly amateur attempt to perpetrate fraud.

John should appear very soon on the Darwin Awards web site.

The Darwin Awards http://www.darwinawards.com/ are given to folks who generously remove themselves from the gene pool in order to help promulgate the rest of the species – who are, by definition, nowhere near as stupid as the recipients.

In the meantime his case neatly demonstrates two important points regarding the English judicial system. Point one: if you are accused of a crime which involves allegations of stealing money from the state, you will be persecuted to the rigour of the law. Point two: if you are so accused, your chances of obtaining bail are nil.

Neither of these points are very sensible or very fair.

If we contrast Darwin's misdemeanors with some other of society's miscreants, it might prove instructional. For example, get drunk, mow down a few innocent pedestrians and attempt to evade arrest and you will get into trouble. How much? Depends. You might get a jail term of a few years. With good behaviour you could be out in 18 months. Most certainly you will not be remanded in custody whilst the police make inquiries.

Lose the entire DHSS data base by posting it to your granny in Inverness and you will not even be named, much less blamed. “Systemic failure” in the system will probably pick up the tab for that one.

The English have a curious ambivalence towards a “fiddle” Whilst deploring it in public, in private everyone secretly loves a rogue. Robin Hood. Alfie. John Stonehouse. George Best. The list is long.

But, when the rogue in question defrauds the state, it's another story. Just a s likely, after a long period on remand, a short trial and a swift sentence, you will find your self examining the Scrubs – from the inside and for a fairly long time.

Not only is this not very fair, it's a waste of police time, court time, my time and your time, not to mention our money. Mr Darwin, if convicted, should not go to jail. He should have to pay back the money. Turning what is a crazy human interest story into a cause celelbre' is silly – if not downright criminal.

Maddie

All summer long we have suffered with the parents of little Madeline McCann, missing in Portugal. Now, they are both suspects in the investigation. What is going on?

What is going on is that the Portuguese police seem to be going back to first principles. All police forces know as a matter of faith that the person most likely to do you harm is a member of your own family. That's just a fact. Not surprisingly they seem to have come late to this realisation. Because the McCanns are an ideal media couple - very respectable doctors, devoutly religious and photogenic, the idea that they might be responsible for Maddie's disappearance is hard to believe. But, as they say, truth is often stranger than fiction.

Fact is: there has been no concrete information about Maddie's disappearance since May. For all intents and purposes she may have been abducted by aliens. She just disappeared. That's one of the few indisputable, concrete facts we can cling to.

What seems to be swinging the investigation towards the parents is DNA evidence. However improbable, it is reported that the police have found Maddie's DNA in a car hired by the McCanns long after Maddie's disappearance. How can this be?

All sorts of theories have surfaced. The DNA came from Maddie's stuffed toy: items of her clothing were transported in the car: the parents used the car to transport Maddie's body somewhere and bury it. What is true is the case raises questions about DNA evidence that have been troubling me for some time.

Ever see the set of adverts on TV which show people acting like apes? The adverts go on to say that human DNA differs from chip DNA by considerably less than one percent. I wonder how many people actually know what this means in practical terms?

I wonder how many people know that the human genome shows almost no genetic variation. We are all remarkably closely related. At the same time, of course, we all have unique DNA sequences which set us apart from other humans. Except for identical twins, we all have a uniquely special set of DNA inherited from our parents. That's the theory anyway, and it fits the known scientific evidence quite well. But, is it foolproof?

Where the sample DNA consists of only minute quantities, or material that has suffered damage, the picture is not so clear. Nevertheless, we take the shibboleth that DNA evidence is the be all and end all of conclusiveness. If the DNA says you did it – you did it.

I've always thought this is very dangerous. Maddie's case highlights some real concerns. If there is DNA in the hire car and it is from Maddie, how did it get there? It's dangerous in the extreme to suppose it must have been deposited by the parents moving the body. Without other corroborating evidence, it should not be possible to convict anyone of a crime solely DNA evidence. If “your” DNA is found on a murder weapon and you know it wasn't you you will soon become a convert to the Scepticism Club. Probably a founder member!

The jury is out on Maddie's disappearance. It is possible the parents are involved/responsible. DNA evidence may help to clear this up. It cannot be used on its own to convict them – or, indeed, anyone else.

Extradition

Crazy - or What?

I'm afraid the illogical news media are at it again.

News that the Russians probably had something to do with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko is not exactly news. The finger of suspicion has been firmly pointed at the Kremlin since Litvinenko's death in London. What makes this story so annoying is the typically parochial way the UK media are focussing on the lack of an extradition arrangement with Russia – despite the fact that Andrei Lugovoy could be prosecuted in Russia for this crime – if sufficient evidence exists.

So, where's the illogicality?

The Enron Three, that's where.

How so? Read on.

Three British bankers are set to be extradited to the United States over charges related to the Enron scandal, following a High Court decision which could have far-reaching consequences for UK extradition law.

Lawyers for the three men tried to block the request by arguing that the Serious Fraud Office should investigate the case.

But Lord Justice Laws ruled the case "has very substantial connections with the United States and is perfectly properly triable there", saying it would be "unduly simplistic to treat the case as a domestic English affair".

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the decision was "nothing short of a disgrace" and the trio were being traded like "sacks of parrots".

Mark Spragg, who acted as solicitor for the three men, spoke of the consequences of the court's decision.

He said: "This judgement means that no UK person or body has to decide which country should prosecute an alleged offence involving more than one country." - The Telegraph

Paraphrasing: we can't let anyone else have anything to do with deciding where to extradite our citizens and (even in the USA) the “foreigners” can't be trusted to organise a trial or dispense justice.

I think this is the same as the Russian position.

Sources in the Office of the Prosecutor-General pointed out that under their constitution they did not extradite their own nationals. They should be tried, if anywhere, in Russia.

There is no bilateral extradition treaty between Britain and the Russian Federation; and although in 2001 the federation signed up to the extradition arrangements under the 1957 European Convention on Human Rights, it retains the opt out that it need not extradite its own nationals. - The Times

Yep, that's what I thought – that is the Russian position.

So, how can the media get outraged when British criminals (alleged) are extradited to the USA to stand trial and then start a media feeding frenzy of astronomical proportions when Russian criminals (alleged) are not extradited to the UK to stand trial?

Anybody ever heard of logic?