Shamima Begum

[Chris in London]

Think we’re on the same page.

I didn’t think of not punishing her as leaving her in Syria.

Whatever laws she broke in Syria is a matter for the Syrians. Sge's not in a camp in Syria as punishment for breaking UK law. It's not justice for her not to be punished for breaking British laws.

She broke our laws, she should do time in our jail.

 

[Chris B]

There are some strange views on here.

Some want an offence committed when the criminal was still a child punished in the same way as you would punish an adult.

Some want a criminal punished for a crime there is no evidence she ever committed.

Some don't want her punished at all.

And at least one isn’t that concerned with punishment because a trial would probably be impossible, but don’t want known associates of terrorists allowed into the country because it’s clearly a risk that can’t be mitigated.

 

[Chris in London]

And at least one isn’t that concerned with punishment because a trial would probably be impossible, but don’t want known associates of terrorists allowed into the country because it’s clearly a risk that can’t be mitigated.

Why is a trial impossible? She left the UK - allegedly - to join a terrorist organisation. There is ample evidence to allow a jury to be satisfied of her guilt.

She broke our law. She should be punished, if convicted, like everyone else.

 

[Chris B]

Why is a trial impossible? She left the UK - allegedly - to join a terrorist organisation. There is ample evidence to allow a jury to be satisfied of her guilt.

She broke our law. She should be punished, if convicted, like everyone else.

Collecting evidence would be impossible. The alleged crimes took place in a chaotic war zone hundreds of miles away. And to cap that, all women were required to wear face coverings while outside. It is hard to imagine a court in London managing to arrange a set of reliable eye witnesses isn’t it?

Additionally, there’s the issue of the latest legislation coming into effect after she joined ISIS, which limits the legal options in the UK.

If you let her into the UK she would be here as a free citizen with no possibility of any legal action being taken against her.

 

[Chris in London]

Collecting evidence would be impossible. The alleged crimes took place in a chaotic war zone hundreds of miles away. And to cap that, all women were required to wear face coverings while outside. It is hard to imagine a court in London managing to arrange a set of reliable eye witnesses isn’t it?

Additionally, there’s the issue of the latest legislation coming into effect after she joined ISIS, which limits the legal options in the UK.

If you let her into the UK she would be here as a free citizen with no possibility of any legal action being taken against her.

The alleged crime is a crime committed by her in the UK contrary to UK law, namely joining a terrorist organisation. When she left the UK to join ISIS it was an offence to join a terrorist organisation. Three of them left together. Two of them are dead. The third committed an offence under our law which it would be relatively straightforward to prove.

Whatever other crimes she committed in Syria, if any, would be very hard to prove, and with some notable exceptions we wouldn't have jurisdiction over them anyway. We do have jurisdiction to try offences under UK law committed in the UK by a British citizen.

Your last sentence, by the way, is just wrong.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There are some strange views on here.

Some want an offence committed when the criminal was still a child punished in the same way as you would punish an adult.

Some want a criminal punished for a crime there is no evidence she ever committed.

Some don't want her punished at all.

I love it when you use the word ‘punish’.

 

[Chris B]

The alleged crime is a crime committed by her in the UK contrary to UK law, namely joining a terrorist organisation. When she left the UK to join ISIS it was an offence to join a terrorist organisation. Three of them left together. Two of them are dead. The third committed an offence under our law which it would be relatively straightforward to prove.

Whatever other crimes she committed in Syria, if any, would be very hard to prove, and with some notable exceptions we wouldn't have jurisdiction over them anyway. We do have jurisdiction to try offences under UK law committed in the UK by a British citizen.

Your last sentence, by the way, is just wrong.

I don’t think that was a crime at the time, although it is now. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that from some of the reporting.

 

[Chris in London]

I don’t think that was a crime at the time, although it is now. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that from some of the reporting.

No, it was.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 gave the Secretary of State permission to proscribe a terrorist organisation so that membership of it was in itself a crime.

Here is a link to the current list of banned organisations. It was first published in 2013.

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

List of terrorist groups or organisations banned under UK law, and details of proscription criteria.

www.gov.uk

Each entry in the list shows the date that organisation was added to it, making membership a crime. ISIS was added to the list in 2014.

Begum travelled to Syria in February 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

 

[Chris in London]

I love it when you use the word ‘punish’.

I like most things that involve a pun.

 

[Chris B]

No, it was.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 gave the Secretary of State permission to proscribe a terrorist organisation so that membership of it was in itself a crime.

Here is a link to the current list of banned organisations. It was first published in 2013.

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

List of terrorist groups or organisations banned under UK law, and details of proscription criteria.

www.gov.uk

Each entry in the list shows the date that organisation was added to it, making membership a crime. ISIS was added to the list in 2014.

Begum travelled to Syria in February 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

It was actually the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 I was thinking of. I think the problem with the legislation you’ve highlighted is proving membership of a group, especially when that happened in Syria. She may have had online exchanges with people in this country but her legal team would argue that didn’t constitute membership of ISIS. Obvs, the 2019 Act couldn’t be retrospectively applied to Begum.

The below is from the HoC library:

In addition to using TEOs, the Government has said repeatedly that it would seek to prosecute anyone who has travelled abroad to engage in terrorism related activity. There are a number of terrorist offences that might be relevant, including belonging to a proscribed organisation, or attendance at a place used for terrorism training. However, there may be difficulties in obtaining evidence of conduct that has taken place abroad, in territory without a functioning criminal justice system that UK authorities could cooperate with.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduced a new offence of “entering or remaining in a designated area” aimed at addressing this difficulty. The new offence would apply to those simply travelling to certain designated parts of the world, without the need to provide evidence of terrorism-related activity whilst there.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I like most things that involve a pun.

I’ve noticed!

 

[Chris in London]

It was actually the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 I was thinking of. I think the problem with the legislation you’ve highlighted is proving membership of a group, especially when that happened in Syria. She may have had online exchanges with people in this country but her legal team would argue that didn’t constitute membership of ISIS. Obvs, the 2019 Act couldn’t be retrospectively applied to Begum.

The below is from the HoC library:

In addition to using TEOs, the Government has said repeatedly that it would seek to prosecute anyone who has travelled abroad to engage in terrorism related activity. There are a number of terrorist offences that might be relevant, including belonging to a proscribed organisation, or attendance at a place used for terrorism training. However, there may be difficulties in obtaining evidence of conduct that has taken place abroad, in territory without a functioning criminal justice system that UK authorities could cooperate with.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduced a new offence of “entering or remaining in a designated area” aimed at addressing this difficulty. The new offence would apply to those simply travelling to certain designated parts of the world, without the need to provide evidence of terrorism-related activity whilst there.

Granted ISIS probably has not got a written constitution that she has signed, but whether she was a member would be a matter for a jury.

Evidence such as the media interviews she has given in which she has admitted membership of ISIS might give her a problem.

 

[Bigga]

He is agreeing with you Bigga.

I’m not saying that at all. But a youth should definitely face less severe punishment than an adult for the same offence. On that basis, your first paragraph is misconceived.

Not quite sure what your last paragraph is about because that echoes what I was saying.

Think you might have misunderstood what I was saying because your response is confusing.

To be honest, chaps, I've been pretty ill with whatever in the last 36 hours.

I'd written two responses and the first one recognised the post was echoing what I said, but for some reason I went with the second and went back to bed!

Just had a quick look om phone and realised the eroor, so apologies.

Off back to sleep to swaet this crap out...

 

[Bigga]

Collecting evidence would be impossible. The alleged crimes took place in a chaotic war zone hundreds of miles away. And to cap that, all women were required to wear face coverings while outside. It is hard to imagine a court in London managing to arrange a set of reliable eye witnesses isn’t it?

^^^

I'm dipping in and out og this thraed but I wanted to highlight this bit as 'm coughing my guts up.

For some reason logic doesn't seem to smack yo in the face about the 'whispers of guilt' for Begum. Both scenarios you put forward for hearsay would include a supposed witness that would see Begum commit such acts... whilst wearing a niqab by your own wording above.

No female is allowed to reveal her face to anotherman, regardless in or out door if said man is not her husband. So, you would have to ask the logical question 'what evidence do the UK have that Begum was guilty of any ACTUAL involvement besides being a mouthy Isis bride at 15?'... Maybe fingerprints or hand recognition software...?

I will let you cobble that logic together. I'm going back to bed...

 

[hammocity]

Indeed it does.. it shouldn't matter one iota how unattractive she is, she's still a human being that needs love and understanding

Ask the majority of Syrians, victims of terror and non believers (even different sects of Muslims) affected by ISIS if she deserves love and understanding, those are the last things she will get and quite rightly. She's lucky to still be alive, bring her back, send her to prison and keep her there beyond her senior years, that will send a punitive message to anyone thinking of doing the same in the future.

 

[Chris B]

^^^

I'm dipping in and out og this thraed but I wanted to highlight this bit as 'm coughing my guts up.

For some reason logic doesn't seem to smack yo in the face about the 'whispers of guilt' for Begum. Both scenarios you put forward for hearsay would include a supposed witness that would see Begum commit such acts... whilst wearing a niqab by your own wording above.

No female is allowed to reveal her face to anotherman, regardless in or out door if said man is not her husband. So, you would have to ask the logical question 'what evidence do the UK have that Begum was guilty of any ACTUAL involvement besides being a mouthy Isis bride at 15?'... Maybe fingerprints or hand recognition software...?

I will let you cobble that logic together. I'm going back to bed...

That’s my point: they’d never get the evidence together to try her for any past offences - if there is any, so best to keep her away. I doubt a strong enough case could be put before a court regardless of statements she has made that would seem to incriminate herself to an extent. All too easy for defence team to cloud that with alternative interpretations. If she comes here she’ll be free.

However, there’s plenty enough evidence of potential involvement with ISIS, which is the basis I think she shouldn’t be allowed to enter the UK. Thankfully, the government has a right to make a judgement to keep her out on the basis of national security, which it has in a legal manner as found by the Supreme Court. She’ll never face proper punishment for any crimes she’s been involved in but I can live with that.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That’s my point: they’d never get the evidence together to try her for any past offences - if there is any, so best to keep her away. I doubt a strong enough case could be put before a court regardless of statements she has made that would seem to incriminate herself to an extent. All too easy for defence team to cloud that with alternative interpretations. If she comes here she’ll be free.

However, there’s plenty enough evidence of potential involvement with ISIS, which is the basis I think she shouldn’t be allowed to enter the UK. Thankfully, the government has a right to make a judgement to keep her out on the basis of national security, which it has in a legal manner as found by the Supreme Court. She’ll never face proper punishment for any crimes she’s been involved in but I can live with that.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[Chris B]

Are you a lawyer?

No, although I’m starting to feel like it having these arguments on here. All my opinions are just mine as an uninformed member of the public.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No, although I’m starting to feel like it having these arguments on here. All my opinions are just mine as an uninformed member of the public.

Not trying to start a fight. Chris in London is one, which is why I tend to listen to his opinion more on this.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

No, although I’m starting to feel like it having these arguments on here. All my opinions are just mine as an uninformed member of the public.

Probably best you aren't. If you were, I could see you defending a client against a CCJ claim and them ending up with capital punishment.

:)