Terrorist shot on london bridge

[ParisInAKilt]

3 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

I partly agree. Given the serious nature of that kind of work, I think that there should be, much as with doctors, a level of expectation that decisions are made professionally, competently and in line with the evidence available at the time. In most cases that’s probably what happens but the danger is that we end up with decisions being made to protect the decision-makers not the public. Where clear negligence can be established though, there’s a logic there. However, there probably would have to be a whole new procedural guidance developed from the encyclopaedic one currently in use,  plus extensive retraining from that which currently exists to steer the decisions. 

Aye I’ve worked with some psychiatrists who’ve made questionable decisions against multidisciplinary advice when discharging people, people who have then committed serious crimes. It’s a horrible amount of responsibility though that I’d never want. 

[ParisInAKilt]

Parole board saying they never released him.

[phart]

The Parole Board said it had no involvement in Khan's release, saying he "appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law)".

[ParisInAKilt]

7 minutes ago, phart said:

The Parole Board said it had no involvement in Khan's release, saying he "appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law)".

Part of a conspiracy to bomb the London stock exchange and is released automatically? 😂😂😂 mon tae fuck. Something can’t be right there.

Edited November 30, 2019 by ParisInAKilt

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

As much of a wanker he is, it’s probably not his fault.  

Tin hat time but I’m convinced the Tories will do anything to avoid a majority in December. 

I don’t think it personally is his fault however he could  have said ‘ we need to review the system and this is something I will  prioritise  if the conservatives are re-elected. 
Instead his main concern is to deflect blame from himself.  
 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by TDYER63
.

[ParisInAKilt]

1 minute ago, TDYER63 said:

I don’t think it personally is his fault however he could  have said ‘ we need to review the system and this is something I will  prioritise  if the conservatives are re-elected. 
Instead his main concern is to deflect blame from himself.  
 

 

 

He wouldn’t have meant it Haha, sociopath 

[phart]

3 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Part of a conspiracy to bomb the London stock exchange and is released automatically? 😂😂😂 mon tae fuck. Something can’t be right there.

"The London Bridge attacker was a convicted terrorist released less than seven years into a 16-year prison sentence for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange, it has emerged."

Seems a bit of a faulty system if this happens without human oversight.

[ParisInAKilt]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

"The London Bridge attacker was a convicted terrorist released less than seven years into a 16-year prison sentence for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange, it has emerged."

Seems a bit of a faulty system if this happens without human oversight.

Or he’s an intelligence asset ... 👀👀
 

Wasn’t he on a watch list / tagged as well so there’s got to have been some human oversight regarding this guy. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by ParisInAKilt

[Orraloon]

.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Orraloon

[aaid]

42 minutes ago, phart said:

The Parole Board said it had no involvement in Khan's release, saying he "appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law)".

He was originally convicted in January 2012 and was given an indeterminate sentence.   That was later overturned on appeal to 16 years with at least 8 to be served in prison and he was released in December 2018.  The period of imprisonment would've included time spent on remand pre-trial so explains why he was in prison just short of 7 years from sentencing before being released.

I haven't read this myself but this is the judgement from the appeal court overturning the original sentence. 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-usman-khan-others.pdf

 

[Mark frae Crieff]

30 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Or he’s an intelligence asset ... 👀👀
 

Wasn’t he on a watch list / tagged as well so there’s got to have been some human oversight regarding this guy. 

If tagged his "Coatbridge" ankle bracelet only needs to be in a Residence from a set time for the receiver to work. 

Unfortunatly if he fecks of within these times he sets an alarm of with the tagging company which alerts the Prison Authorities and then the police..

 

[aaid]

29 minutes ago, Mark frae Crieff said:

If tagged his "Coatbridge" ankle bracelet only needs to be in a Residence from a set time for the receiver to work. 

Unfortunatly if he fecks of within these times he sets an alarm of with the tagging company which alerts the Prison Authorities and then the police..

 

A bit more than that I suspect.  He was subject to an order under the Prevention of Terrorism act for 30 years so I imagine it was a bit more than just being in the house at night.  Whatever it was obviously dídnt work.  

Edited November 30, 2019 by aaid

[aaid]

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Although this guy could fall into both categories? Foreign (possibly) and ex criminal. 

British, from Stoke. 

[phart]

4 hours ago, aaid said:

He was originally convicted in January 2012 and was given an indeterminate sentence.   That was later overturned on appeal to 16 years with at least 8 to be served in prison and he was released in December 2018.  The period of imprisonment would've included time spent on remand pre-trial so explains why he was in prison just short of 7 years from sentencing before being released.

I haven't read this myself but this is the judgement from the appeal court overturning the original sentence. 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-usman-khan-others.pdf

 

Seems these are the relevant passages.

70.Dealing first with the question of dangerousness, at the time that these appellants were sentenced, in our judgment there is no doubt that anyone convicted of this type of offence could legitimately be considered dangerous within the meaning of the legislation: that includes Hussain and Latif to whom we refer below. Furthermore, given that it is difficult to identify the extent to which those who have been radicalised (perhaps as a result of immaturity or otherwise) will have modified their views having served a substantial term of imprisonment and there is an argument for concluding that anyone convicted of such an offence should be incentivised to demonstrate that he can safely be released; such a decision is then better left to the parole board for consideration proximate in time to the date when release becomes possible.

71.On the other hand, the extent to which the evidence demonstrated that the threat of a terrorist attack had progressed beyond talk (however apparently determined) is relevant to the risk posed by the offender and the need to protect the public. The judge certainly concluded that the London planning had not progressed so far as to demonstrate such a risk that imprisonment for public protection was necessary and although we recognise that training terrorists in the use of firearms could only lead to potential loss of life, whereas the intention of the London defendants did not encompass death or serious injury (while recognising the serious risk that such would result), on any showing, the fulfilment of that goal was further removed and there were other obstacles (not least as a consequence of the fact that their activities had come to the attention of the security services in Pakistan). Furthermore, there is no suggestion that any of the Stoke defendants had, in fact, been trained, let alone that they would be in a position to activate, operate or participate within a training facility not then built, however keen they might have been to do so and however much they might have talked up their prospects between themselves or to others whom they sought to influence.

72.Notwithstanding the considerable respect that the conclusion reached by Wilkie J merits, we have come to the conclusion that if, as he concluded, the plans of the two groups were “equally serious”, the risk posed to the public could not be greater from those who were very much further away from realising their apparent goal than those who were far closer to doing so. 73.Although potentially highly relevant both to culpability and potential harm (and, thus, of importance for the purpose of fixing the punitive part of any sentence), in our judgment, when assessing the future risk to the public, too much weight should not be placed on conversations for the purpose of ascribing comparative sophistication: it is not implausible that some self-publicists will talk ‘big’ and other, more serious plotters, may be more careful and keep their own counsel. Suffice to say, on the question of comparative risk, we do not consider that a distinction can safely be

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.R v. Khan & ors drawn between the London and Stoke defendants. In those circumstances, we quash the sentences of imprisonment and detention for public protection and will impose, in their place, determinate terms, in each case with an extension of five years. To that extent, we place the Stoke defendants in the same position as the London defendants.

 

So LORD JUSTICE LEVESONMR JUSTICE MITTINGand MR JUSTICE SWEENEY Determined that the best course of action was the quash the need for a parole board based on their understanding of law. Showing the law had no understanding of the situation. The last bolded part is my adaption apart from formatting and that it;s the same.

[aaid]

A couple of things to consider.  First of all the attacker was originally given a custodial sentences of eight years with an additional imprisonment for public protection order.   What that meant was that he would have to had served a minimum of 8 years and then would only have been released once a judgement had been made as to whether or not he posed a threat to the public.

These orders were introduced in 2005 by the Blair government - only applies to England and Wales - and were designed for offences which do not attract a life tariff but where it was felt that there would still be a threat to the public, for example rape or funnily enough terrorist offences.   I've no idea where the idea came from but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in response to some heinous crime, hard cases make bad law as the saying goes.

These orders were a complete disaster as judges used them for cases they were never designed to be used, this should've really only applied to perhaps a few hundred cases but there were thousands issued.  There are stil hundreds of people who have served way in excess of their original sentence and for a variety of reasons cannot secure their release date.  Mostly it's through no fault of the offenders themselves but rather that the prison service doesn't have the have resources to verify that they no longer pose a threat  

If you look into this in some detail  then it's a real miscarriage of justice due to unforeseen consequences.  

This was why the law introducing them was repealedin 2012 under the Coalition government.  The timing of that in this case pretty significant.  The attacker was originally convicted in January 2012 and by the time the appeal was heard in 2013 they'd been discredited and discontinued.    

As I mentioned earlier, the original sentence would've seen him serve 8 years minimum as the punishment part of his sentence and would then be released as and when he was deemed to no longer pose a threat to the public.  

IPP orders were replaced by Extended Determinitive Sentences which differed from IPPs, in that there was a minimum punishment tariff as before but then a time limited additional tariff which would only be served if the prisoner was still deemed to be  a danger.  The maximum extended period for violent offences - I assume terrorist offences fall under that - is 5 years.

So what the appeal court effectively did was to replace the original sentence with the same effective sentence under the new legislation.   The punishment tariff was increased from 8 years to 16 years with the 5 year EDS tagged on.  That would mean that the earliest he could be released would be after 8 years - 50% of the punishment term.

What an EDS actually means in terms of when you can be released depends on the rules that were in place at the point the sentence was imposed and they've changed over the years, so it's hard to know what particular rules applied here.

However, it does appear that at the end of the minimum period, the prisoner is supposed to go through the parole process so the statement from the parole board that he was automatically released without reference to them seems strange.

Looks like there are a lot of questions to be answered here.

[thplinth]

How is it possible to be so UK establishment in every way, except (nominally) when it comes to Scottish independence, and still fool so many. How. 

[ParisInAKilt]

Automatically released after trying to blow up the stock exchange 😂😂😂

Not a chance this was just an oversight. 

[ParisInAKilt]

I shouldn’t laugh, people died and have been affected for life by this

[aaid]

Really good explanation from the Secret Barrister here which goes into this in some detail and corrects some errors in my understanding above   

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/11/30/10-thing-you-should-know-about-the-london-bridge-attacker-and-early-release/

[aaid]

7 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Automatically released after trying to blow up the stock exchange 😂😂😂

Not a chance this was just an oversight. 

He didn't try and blow up the Stock Exchange 

[ParisInAKilt]

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

He didn't try and blow up the Stock Exchange 

Okay plotted to do so 

[aaid]

15 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Okay plotted to do so 

He wasn't even involved in that.  There were three separate groups of terrorists, one based in Stoke, one based in London and another in Cardiff.  They were all in contact with each other and were tried together but they were involved in different terrorist related activity. The London Bridge attacker was part of the Stoke group, they were primarily involved in raising funds for a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.  It was the London group who were planning an attack on the Stock Exchange. 

Furthermore, in the original sentencing, the London group - who were plotting to blow up the Stock Exchange - were not given an IPP as they were deemed by the original trial judge to be less dangerous than the Stoke group.  They would automatically be released after 50% of their sentence and are probably out on licence now.

The whole basis for the appeal on sentence was that the Stoke group should have been treated the same way as the London group.  

Edited November 30, 2019 by aaid

[Ally Bongo]

[phart]

13 hours ago, thplinth said:

How is it possible to be so UK establishment in every way, except (nominally) when it comes to Scottish independence, and still fool so many. How. 

 

The appeal judges decided that Despite differing levels of sophistication they would treat 2 different events "the same"(or they were as serious as each other) "serious" never being defined in this context, they had no objective measure to think they should materially be the same but they judged it that way anyway. Since Levenson thought this way he was behoven to give them the same sentence.

 

So like Priests of old, Judges, gatekeepers to an idea with their esoteric language that you give money to so they can give you salvation/Justice. Took them decades and several of them till we got anywhere near the truth on hillsborough or Bloody Sunday.

[aaid]

32 minutes ago, phart said:

 

The appeal judges decided that Despite differing levels of sophistication they would treat 2 different events "the same"(or they were as serious as each other) "serious" never being defined in this context, they had no objective measure to think they should materially be the same but they judged it that way anyway. Since Levenson thought this way he was behoven to give them the same sentence.

 

So like Priests of old, Judges, gatekeepers to an idea with their esoteric language that you give money to so they can give you salvation/Justice. Took them decades and several of them till we got anywhere near the truth on hillsborough or Bloody Sunday.

What's the the alternative though?   

Somewhere along the line someone has to make a decision based on the law and how that should be interpreted   It seems to me that a suitably experienced and qualified independent judiciary is the best solution.   Any alternative to me looks like a much worse proposition.  Being human, judges will make mistakes and that's what the whole appeals process is supposed to address but ultimately it will fall to one body to make the final decision.

That's not to say that that there aren't structural imbalances in the type of people that fill those roles are members of a particular cohort.

When all the various Brexit and Prorogation cases were going through the Supreme Court and I looked at where the fifteen Supreme Court Justices were educated. From memory, all bar 2-3 had gone to private schools - Baroness Hale was one - and all bar a couple had been educated at Oxford or Cambridge - I think the guy from NI had gone to Queens and the two Scottish one's had gone to Glasgow/Edinburgh and one had also gone to Cambridge.

Thats not unique to the justiciary in the UK and is the same in politics, the media and several other areas.   Scotland, I think is a bit more egalitarian but still probably not ideal.