One of today’s news stories was the decision by the Court of Appeal that the men who hijacked the Ariana 727 in 2000 should be freed from jail.
The aircraft was flown to Stansted where it spent 3 days under siege by police. At their trial, the hijackers said they had no choice, as they would have been killed by the Taliban regime unless they had taken this opportunity of escaping Afghanistan. The trial judge directed the jury that the burden of proof for this rested on the defendants. Left unable to prove this, the defendants were not able to claim they had acted under duress and were subseuntly found guilty.
Today’s verdict is that the trial judge acted incorrectly, as it should have been evident the Taliban would have executed the hijackers. On this point of law, the hijackers are now free.
Question to everyone – do you think this case sets a precedent for hijackers? Are they now able to claim that acting under duress is a defence for hijacking?
By: Comet - 26th May 2003 at 09:47
Originally posted by mmitch
I’m afraid the whole UK legal system seems to be going down the drain. Burglars and murderers have human rights but not their victims. Now hijacking is not a crime if the hijackers feel threatened. Al Qaeda will feel threatened by the US so they will head here. We already have some of their supporters here living on our taxes. (Rant off):mad:
mmitch.
mmitch – I couldn’t agree more, you have people on this forum who share your view completely my friend:)
My views on what should be done with the hijackers (and indeed other criminals) are not really fit to repeat on the forum, so I’ll leave it to your imagaination and darkest nightmares!!!
By: mongu - 25th May 2003 at 23:51
Well bloody tough luck. An independent judiciary is one of the prices of a free society and it is disheartening to see people whinge about that just because they have reservations about the verdict (which I do, but the answer is not to have a go at the judge)
Mmitch, you don’t seem to understand how the legal system works – laws are made by elected people and the interpretation is done by judges. This is what “case law” means. And judges, whatever their faults, are extremely intelligent and experienced former QCs or barristers. And basically, if you want to demean the democratic process wirth mere price taggery then this is a sad world!
The rule of law must stand whether you agree with it or not! That’s what marks a civilised society out against the kind of barbaric regime those men fled from.
Rant over, but in my opinion the case has NOT set a precedent.
What it has done is establish a subective “test” which judges must apply – having established a hijacker was acting under duress, was every reasonably step taken to protect the lives and rights of the passengers and crew and were the hijackers good boys and cooperative with the authorities once the aircraft was on the tarmac?
By: mmitch - 25th May 2003 at 20:30
Yes but the job of the judiciary is only to interpret the law as it stands, not make it up. If you feel it isn’t working you would have to change the law and only parliament can do that.
This has been the problem recently. The judges seem to think that the law is open to their interpretation and no one elses.
Judges are not elected.
And of course now the ‘human rights’ laws can be used to overturn anything.
If the Law Lords do uphold the verdict the hijackers will be able to sue the authorities for unlawful inprisionment according to the press. So far the whole shambles has cost us taxpayers over £20M:mad:
mmitch.
By: greekdude1 - 25th May 2003 at 19:22
I’m not aware of the U.S. encouraging any sort of high jacking, even in the instance against Cuba and Castro. We have sent back refugees from Cuba, before. We don’t take them all.
By: mongu - 25th May 2003 at 15:51
Yes but the job of the judiciary is only to interpret the law as it stands, not make it up. If you feel it isn’t working you would have to change the law and only parliament can do that.
Do you think the Crown will refer the case to the Law Lords? If so, what joy?
By: mmitch - 25th May 2003 at 14:35
I’m afraid the whole UK legal system seems to be going down the drain. Burglars and murderers have human rights but not their victims. Now hijacking is not a crime if the hijackers feel threatened. Al Qaeda will feel threatened by the US so they will head here. We already have some of their supporters here living on our taxes. (Rant off):mad:
mmitch.
By: MSR777 - 25th May 2003 at 13:36
Officially no-but as usual in that Cuba/US situation all is OK as long as it gets at Castro, but thats for another forum!
By: Bhoy - 25th May 2003 at 11:39
but don’t the US already encourage Cubans to hijack flights and seek refuge in Florida?
By: mongu - 24th May 2003 at 17:20
On the face of it there would appear to be a precedent now for hijacking – if you are acting under duress then your actions can under certain conditions be construed as an invocation of the right to self defence.
On the other hand even the defence counsel was keen to point out that the case was unique and did not necessarily set a precendent.
The point, I think, is that there is a distinction between hijacking an Afhan aircraft in Afghanistan (justifiable) and then taking it outside of Afghanistan at gunpoint (not justifiable).
But surely this opens a can of worms! Can we now expect hijackings from all dodgy countries – Cuba, Saudi Arabia…..?
By: purser - 24th May 2003 at 12:30
No difinitely not, they should not be freed until the end of their sentence.
I have every sympathy for those people living under oppressive regimes, I can’t imagine what it must be like.
However, they hijacked an aircraft, it’s an illegal act, end of story!
They have been safe from the Taliban in prison and will be safe when they are relaeased as the Taliban no longer exist.
Hijacking an aircraft for whatever reason should not be tollerated.
Having said that……this is England and we are talking about the rediculous English justice system so anything is possible!!!!!
By: MSR777 - 24th May 2003 at 11:20
I have to say that as most of us on this forum are either employed within the aviation industry or great fans of it, I am surprised and a little worried at the lack of response to mongus post! Come on folks there must be views on this dubious verdict out there somewhere! Or am I the only one who thinks that this judgement is very flawed.
By: MSR777 - 23rd May 2003 at 20:04
I believe that this sets a very bad precedent indeed. Hijacking is air piracy at its very worst, there is absolutely no justification in a civilised world for the seizure, at the point of arms and under the threat of violence, of a civilian airliner going about its lawful business. The justification used by these criminals could apply to the citizens of many countries, I fear it will open the doorway to more of these types of offence. I was senior on duty in an Ops office at Stansted the night that these criminals threatened to the poor duty ATC controller on open tower frequency to kill further hostages unless a certain individual was brought to the aircraft. I shall always remember the calm and professional manner that the ATC guy maintained when we could all hear the shouts of terror in the background as the criminals made their demand live on the tower frequency. No, this is a bad verdict! Has the world gone completely mad?
Sign In
May 23, 2003 at 12:19 am