Even Aitzaz Zafar’s lawyer concedes that the material his client and four companions had amassed on their computers was “unpleasant.”
There was a film showing atrocities against Muslims around the world. There were pamphlets exhorting Muslims to fight back. There was a suicide-bombing manual.
Three of the boys’ faces had been digitally grafted into a montage of the 9/11 hijackers. In another photo, two of them posed as mujihadeen – bearded fierce-eyed young men in combat fatigues.
But on Wednesday a London appeals court overturned the five students’ conviction last year under the 2000 Terrorism Act, deciding there was no proof that they had planned to commit violence.
Zafar’s lawyer, Imran Khan, said his client’s victory would bring relief to Muslims, who since the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington have increasingly felt the probing eye of the police bearing down on them.
“Young Muslim men, before this judgment, could have been prosecuted for simply looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes,” Khan told the BBC as he emerged from London’s Royal Courts of Justice.
However, the judges’ decision has been hailed as a victory not just for the five young suspects, or even British Muslims generally, but for British justice.
The ruling re-interprets the 2000 Terrorism Act – specifically sections 57 and 58, which outlaw the possession of material likely to be connected to terrorism. Many open investigations will be reviewed and convictions appealed based on the court's decision.
“If these young men were truly plotting an act of terror, the Government needed to prove that case beyond doubt - otherwise, this swim through disturbing waters was alarming, but not, under a reasonable interpretation of the law, criminal,” wrote The Daily Telegraph on Thursday.
“The distinction might rest on fine legal detail - but such detail forms the boundary between justice and supposition, between proof and accusation, which is necessary for all of our liberties to remain intact,” the newspaper said.
Comments (2)
So what? Just because someone is a "terrorist suspect", it doesn't mean he is a terrorist.
Posted by Daniel | February 15, 2008 5:58 AM
Posted on February 15, 2008 05:58
i am struggling with this one.
didnt one of these people send a letter to his parents showing intent to committ terrorism ?
do people who download peodophile images get the same benefit of the doubt.
in C4 news - one of them would not refute that he supported jihadi activities.
we appear to be appeasing acts of abhorrence - we are talking about terrorism.
i believe victims of terror will feel sick at this decision.
it appears we have to wait for them to committ some act of terror before we act.
i am going to leave this country - the rights of the wrongdoer are being put above the rights of the victims.
Posted by peter welsh | February 14, 2008 10:34 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 22:34