I just read in the news that an older brother, has been CHARGED with " failing to provide info." on is younger brother, who happens to be one of the remaining eight suspects, they arrested recently, for an ALLEGED terrorist activity, but the funny thing is that after over two weeks of evidence gathering, interrogation etc. , the very same police and crown prosecution services, have not seen it fit to charge the younger brother !
If after all this time in custody, the younger brother is still not charged, how the hell his older brother, should have suspected anything and grassed on him ?
What is next ? they are going to charge my next door neighbours, for an alleged crime, that I have not been charged for it yet ?
Why does the CPS not charge the younger brother first, possibly convict him and then charge people for not having grassed on their family members !
2006-08-25 02:42:40 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/25082006/325/12th-bomb-plot-suspect-appears-court.html
2006-08-25 02:42:58 · update #1
I am asking a question in Law, your political views about skinning terrorists alive, or, British crimes on Palestinians are irrelevant here !
It is a question of procedure, ethics and law ! when the younger brother as yet is not charged, his older brother should not have been charged for not having volunteering info . ! simple
If they needed to keep the older one in custody, they should have applied to the courts and gain more time !
2006-08-25 03:02:20 · update #2
Dear coragryph:
Can you tell us more (links perhaps) about that .
Reminds me of the movie “Minority Report” , but in real life
SCARY, with capital S !
2006-08-25 04:55:01 · update #3
thanx to "foo fighters & Alexnol", , but bear in mind one can argue & try to justify anything, I still do not believe that there should be a law, holding ordinary people responsible & accountable to report on family and friends,
it also can be abused, by anybody who doesn't like his Paki neighbour ( No disrespect!).
This is an act to penalise the families of suspects, Just as Nazi's did !
2006-08-25 12:31:53 · update #4
Same thing happened in the US.
A man was convicted for a life sentence because he attended meetings with people who were suspected of intending to plan terrorist actions in the future. At the time of his conviction, nobody had done anything, or attempted to do anything. And the person convicted have never conspired with anyone to do anything.
His mere presence, with people who might in the future commit terrorist actions, was enough for him to be convicted. The prosecutor is on record of being proud that they can now convict people before they ever have the chance to plan any criminal action.
And on top of all that, the govt is now prosecuting the man's father for not turning his son in.
2006-08-25 04:20:07 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would presume the reason they have been able to charge on the brother before charging the younger brother is that they may already have enough evidence to charge the younger brother with something, but they may be awaiing further evidence (forensic etc) so they can decide if they can actually charge something more serious than what they can actually prove at this point.
By charging the elder brother first when they have had the correct evidence to do so then they can avoid any arguement ove abuse of process etc.
And by waiting till they have enough evidence etc to charge the younger brother they can also remove a abuse of process arguement.
You cant really beat getting it right first time round instead of the legal minefield of altering a charge at court much later on at which point it would be easier for defence counsel to object to it, if it was the wrong charge initially then the defendent would have a much easier task of proving not guilty.
Whilst there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence it should be remembered that the people charged are only alleged and are innocent until it is proven otherwise, we don't know if they were or weren't up to anything and that is for a judge/jury to decide with the evidence put to the court.
2006-08-25 19:13:11 · answer #2 · answered by alx n 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
S19(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 creates an offense if sombody 'does not disclose to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable-
(a) his belief or suspicion, and
(b) the information on which it is based.
So i guess teh key thing is that, the police havent charged him yet because they have to PROVE that he was planning to take part in these attacks, whereas the brother only need SUSPECT him.
At the end of the day its all about the level of proof required. Level needed for an arrest is, following the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 reasonable grounds to suspect, which is basically the same as what the Terrorism Act is requiring of the brother. So the arrest and the charge (non-informant) do run parrallel. But the burden of proof in criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt; meaning that there cant be much doubt in the juries mind ie 90+% sure. Obviously this burdon of proof is much higher than the 'reasonable grounds to suspect' needed for an arrest, hence why the 'plotter' hasnt been charged, but the brother has been.
2006-08-25 17:57:46 · answer #3 · answered by Master Mevans 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It could be the older brother is refusing to answer the questions! In which case, he's fair game!
If there was no evidence, he should say so. Obviously he's covering up which could lead to no conviction, which could lead to another terrorist being out on the loose. Sorry, but the seriousness of this crime does away with any liberal ideals.
2006-08-25 09:52:49 · answer #4 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If they can't charge the younger brother then the other charges will be dropped, one assumes anyway. They probably just want to make sure he doesn't get away with it.
2006-08-25 09:51:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The police have to make sure that the fella wasn't guilty of an offence, if they let him out and he passed on vital imformation or worse still planted a bomb there would be an even bigger outcry, if you found out that your brother was going to kill a few hundred innocent ppl, what would you do? if you do nothing you would be just as guilty.
2006-08-25 09:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by David 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why does the CPS not charge the younger brother? etc
Because they have as much evidence to charge him for this as they had for the mysteriously missing Weapons of Mass Destruction that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
2006-08-25 09:52:35 · answer #7 · answered by Neil M 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i agree.I also read that one of the alleged terrorists has been charged with owning a map of Afghanistan. If that's the case then wow, am i in trouble...
2006-08-25 09:51:43 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let the British system alone.. They do know what they are doing.. It is considerably better than the American system.. BUT... still if I was in charge, I would put even more clamps into the system and let the guilty have less and less jurisdiction over their destiny
2006-08-25 09:47:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
To be honest, I would take what you read in the news with a pinch of salt, there is undoubtably more to it than that that has been lost on the way to making a story
2006-08-25 09:47:21 · answer #10 · answered by Caffeine Fiend 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋