Pirates could claim asylum if brought to the UK for Trial? - The Royal Navy - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Pirates could claim asylum if brought to the UK for Trial?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Alisdair Gillespie		#11	[-]
Posts: 2435 (18-Apr-2008 16:00:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Alexius, The HRA 1998 does (ordinarily) preclude the extradition of a person to a country with the death penalty as it is considered to be a breach of the positive obligation under Article 2 and its equivalent (optional) protocol. It is for that reason why countries that are signatories to the ECHR and that particular protocol. For exaple, when we extradite to the USA a diplomatic memorandum is agreed between the countries that the State will not execute somebody we extradite (although we can waive this under certain circumstances). Zen, In terms of the legal status of a ship. There are various domestic and international agreements relating to this. For civilian ships registered in the UK the Merchant Shipping Act applies and it generally confers English law on the ship (subject to loads of quite boring exceptions). A warship, however, is considered to be sovereign territory and thus UK law automatically applies although it would normally be service laws... A warship is in essence the equivalent of an embassy (which is also sovereign territory). Alisdair.
Alexius55		#12	[-]
Posts: 269 (18-Apr-2008 20:16:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Nice catch on the HRA, but surely handing them over to Kenya (where the last execution was in 1984, so a MoU could be obtained if necessary) would be possible. Unfortunately, UK prisons are already full without adding large numbers of Somali pirates! Edit: We can't extradite them, but does that mean they can claim asylum? Let's say an American citizen wanted for murder in a death-penalty state was to turn up in the UK and claim asylum. Would he get it, or be deported back to the US (not extradited, just put on a plane and left to take his chances with American law enforcement). The HRA doesn't change the asylum legislation, or does it? Scouse- the pirate vessel is "an open boat", either a speedboat or a fishing vessel. If that is sunk, the pirates are swimming- so if the RN were to do so, there would be an outcry. Perhaps they could throw the engine and weapons overboard, and leave the pirates to row home- incidentally, meaning that if they want to continue as pirates, they have to buy new equipment, so piracy becomes less financially viable. Still, I think the best option is to hand the pirates over to Kenya. Last Edited By: Alexius55 18-Apr-2008 20:28:38. Edited 1 times.
Alisdair Gillespie		#13	[-]
Posts: 2436 (18-Apr-2008 20:41:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Alexius, To be honest I think the whole thing is incredibly fishy: I seriously doubt that this is the instructions that the RN has been given. It sounds to me more like a junior lawyer has a written a "worst-case" scenario opinion to be one of a number of opinions that would be taken when formulating policy and that this has then been leaked to the press for whatever reason. The ECHR itself states that it cannot be used by people who wish to infringe a person's human rights and pirates would seem to fall into this. Also, the assylum laws (both domestic and under international instruments) recognise that serious criminals (and pirates are certainly that regardless of whether they have a parrot on their shoulder or not) cannot claim assylum. I think this is mischief-making by the press. To answer your question however I think turning them over to someone else or trying them ourselves (although that does carry the problem of its our jails) would be possible. Alisdair.
Craiglxviii		#14	[-]
Posts: 63 (19-Apr-2008 20:29:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The whole issue to me sounds more a case of the press blowing up a story, but I think it is something in which the "law" could be more effective. For instance, during a state of war any enemy combatants captured out of uniform are to be considered as guerilla fighters, and liable to summary execution- and quite rightly so. Similarly so with piracy- traditionally being captured whilst sailing under the Jolly Roger was liable to end you up doing the "Tyburn jig" off the nearest yardarm until the 30's. Anyone want to posit on why Common Law never seems to want to tackle these contentious issues? I mean, if we were to follow the latest case on the news, we'd be sending these pirates on a 6 week all expenses paid safari, if the Law Lords had any say in the matter... Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
David Newton		#15	[-]
Posts: 2471 (21-Apr-2008 08:45:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Part of the problem we are facing in the current war is that the laws of war about illegal combatants are not being enforced. Most of those we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan could be classified as illegal combatants and thus subject to summary jurisdiction when captured. That jurisdiction, and harsh treatment under it, is there for the very good reason of stopping people fighting out of uniform and putting civilians in danger. Court martial and execution of such illegal combatants is a treatment that should be meted out a great deal more. Hold a competent tribunal under the Geneva Conventions to decide the people captured out of uniform are illegal combatants, and thus not allowed to be prisoners of war, hold an appropriate court martial and execute them. Not only would it deter people from fighting against us out of uniform, but it would also mean that a lot of dangerous fanatics are out of the way, rather than hanging around to cause more trouble later. Two fundamental problems prevent this course of action being taken. The first is that, unfortunately, we have abolished the death penalty in those sort of situations. The second is that, even if we did have the death penalty in those situations, those self-same people who %%!++ and moan about "civilian casualties" every time our forces even so much as sneeze in the direction of the enemy would have a field day. The fact that we would be executing people who, by definition, are not civilians and would be doing so to protect civilians form harm would not even cross their minds. At the moment in the UK there is ample evidence to suggest that we have gone soft and decadent in many ways. The fact that this issue is even a possibility is part of such evidence.
CliffS		#16	[-]
Posts: 504 (26-Apr-2008 02:22:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In 1995, the day after Jacques Chirac became President of France, I had to secure the premises of the French Consulate in Sydney against an invasion by the Sydney Peace Squadron (a bunch of tree-huggers loosely affiliated to Greenpeace, ergo with a decidedly Francophobic bias). Pat-down search reveals they are sanitized; generic IDs verbally supplied - the usual anti-law-enforcement techniques (and attitude). What really shakes them, though, is my mentioning the option of charging them under French, rather than Australian, law. They went white at the prospect. Admittedly, it was a fanciful notion: at worst, the French would refuse them entry should they ever attempt to visit the country. But it certainly gained me their undivided attention for a vital few minutes. In the context of a naval vessel, like a consulate or embassy, being sovereign territory - if any action by the CO of the vessel could be construed as a breach of British law, he would be in serious trouble. Still ... strange things happen at sea, don't they? Cheers, Cliff
emc		#17	[-]
Posts: 3707 (26-Apr-2008 16:26:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	bager1968 wrote: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/611346/the-weakest-link.thtml In Londonistan, the appeasement of radical Islamism is lurching ever more giddily into the realm of the surreal. Hard on the heels of the Appeal Court ruling that abu Qatada, bin Laden's right hand man and the most important al Qaeda operative in Europe, cannot be deported to Jordan under human rights law because witnesses in any future prosecution of him might themselves have been tortured by the Jordanians, the Sunday Times reported yesterday: The Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft. Quick, is there a legitimate government in Somalia? I suspect that the current answer is "no," so there's no one to whom custody could be transferred. In any case, piracy is (as noted earlier) is a crime under international law, and there is no need for the RN (or any other navy) to send them to any other country for trial. Piracy was (and is) extant largely because local governments are incapable of enforcing the law or loath to do so; sending Somalian pirates to Somalia for trial would probably be as pointless as sending a ww1 U-boat commander to Berlin for trial, as the authorities would not have considered them to have committed a crime. Last Edited By: emc 26-Apr-2008 16:32:59. Edited 1 times.
CliffS		#18	[-]
Posts: 505 (27-Apr-2008 00:43:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	emc wrote: bager1968 wrote: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/611346/the-weakest-link.thtml In Londonistan, the appeasement of radical Islamism is lurching ever more giddily into the realm of the surreal. Hard on the heels of the Appeal Court ruling that abu Qatada, bin Laden's right hand man and the most important al Qaeda operative in Europe, cannot be deported to Jordan under human rights law because witnesses in any future prosecution of him might themselves have been tortured by the Jordanians, the Sunday Times reported yesterday: The Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft. Quick, is there a legitimate government in Somalia? I suspect that the current answer is "no," so there's no one to whom custody could be transferred. In any case, piracy is (as noted earlier) is a crime under international law, and there is no need for the RN (or any other navy) to send them to any other country for trial. Piracy was (and is) extant largely because local governments are incapable of enforcing the law or loath to do so; sending Somalian pirates to Somalia for trial would probably be as pointless as sending a ww1 U-boat commander to Berlin for trial, as the authorities would not have considered them to have committed a crime. Good point, emc. ISTR reading somewhere that pirates off the coast of one ASEAN state, were found to be members of the armed forces of that country. Pay & conditions were apparently so bad as to make crime an economic necessity. Cheers, Cliff

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply