In a country that is run by the rule of law then every individual should be entitled to have the services of a defence counsel when brought before the courts accused of a criminal offence. Equally those who feel that they have been treated unjustly by the criminal justice system should be able to appeal either their conviction or sentence.
However there are some appeals that appear to have no merit to them whatsoever because there is no doubt at all about the guilt of the accused and no question in the minds of reasonable people that the sentence passed down by the lower court is justified. Sometimes appeals can look more like piss taking and lawfare rather than genuine cases where a sentence is justifiably harsh.
A very good example of an appeal that has zero merit to it because the sentence was justified due to the nature of the crime is the forthcoming appeal by the Islamoloon jihadist who killed three men in Reading last year. Khairi Saadallah an extremist and a ‘refugee’ from Libya, murdered the three men in an act of jihad. There’s no doubt as to his motive and extremist material was found on his phone and it was later discovered that he was associated with Libyan jihadist groups. This was not a case of ‘mental illness’. This was plainly jihad and this savage Muslim as can be seen by the evidence of witnesses who said that this savage shouted out the Islamic war cry of ‘Allah hu Akbar’ during the attack.
With three deaths, caused by an act of terrorism and with no mitigating factors for this this particular Islamic savage, the decision by the trial judge to impose a whole life tariff sentence was both just and justified. There is no reasonable ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ sense in this appeal. The crimes were more than adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt and because there was no mental health aspect to this crime and it can be clearly shown that this was a terrorist offence, the whole life tariff is not really something that could be reasonably argued against.
So why is this savage appealing? Is it because he’s, like a lot of appellants a ‘chancer’, is he using the appeal as a way of taking the piss out of the nation and our society or is it yet another example of jihadist lawfare being used against us? All the motivations are somewhat debatable and it is to be hoped that this appeal will be thrown out at the earliest possible opportunity by the courts. What should really annoy Britons is that if this savage was left to his own resources and his own devices he probably would not be appealing, because he would not have access to sufficient resources to pay for the required legal representation. Unfortunately we have a perverted legal aid system that gives money to pay for the lawyers to bring frivolous appeals by the the likes of this savage, but which denies legal representation to the vast majority of hard working Britons. This savage is taking the piss out of us and what’s worse is he’s doing it with money extorted from taxpayers. That should annoy Britons just as much if not more than the pointless appeal.
I think this sort of thing, aided and abetted by Human Rights Lawyers (HRLs), *does* anger Brits when we get to hear about it.
In some cases over a million pounds has been hoovered up by HRLs (that’s ~40 years average UK income, i.e. a lifetime’s work, in 2020) over many years to keep such convicted savages in the Country in a whole series of frivolous appeals.
It is not just the jihadist who is “taking the piss” or carrying out Lawfare (Jihad by law) it is the HRLs as well.
One reason for this is that IMO most lawyers, not just HRLS though they seem to be the archetypal example (remember Phil Shiner?), have lost sight of the *fundamental purpose* of law which is to serve *justice*, instead regarding “the law” as either a process (and an interminable, ever-extendible, one at that) or else an end in and of itself.
In somewhat Jeffersonian terms I would regard what we often have in this Country (and much of West at least), is a “tyranny of law” (and, indeed lawyers, including the plethora we have in parliament) that operates against justice and freedom (of speech for example).
I would also add that we seldom need new laws to deal with [insert cause of choice] what is required is the enforcement of existing law. For example: there is no genuine need for “hate speech” law or the ever widening definition of “hate”, the law of incitement is sufficient to deal with speech that genuinely stirs up hatred and violence.
From reading around I also get the impression that Britons are pissed off with the HRL’s. I don’t think that it would be so objectionable if the HRL’s took on a broad spectrum of cases, for example cases like the young girl who was dragged in front of the courts for quoting a Rap song lyric that a minority police officer found objectionable, or those targeted by the trans rights activists for being gender critical as well as the Islamoloons like this one. The problem is that’s not what happens. The HRL’s seem to exclusively work on cases related to deportations of undesirables, Jihadists, Irish Republicans and far left wingers. The HRL’s by virtue of their choice to work only or mostly for clients who hate Britain in some way end up getting vast amounts of taxpayers money defending or representing those who hate us.
Yes I also would like to see the hated ‘hate speech’ laws go. Not just because they are an inherent threat to freedom of speech, but because they are far too often applied inequitably.