The mother of one of four suspected Islamic State fighters has lost a legal challenge against the UK's sharing of evidence with the US without seeking assurances he would not be executed.
Ms Elgizouli's lawyers argued that the UK's long-standing opposition to the death penalty was therefore cast aside in the interests of political expediency.
But today's judgement underlines that no law has been broken.
Mr Elsheikh is not British - nor is he under UK control - so the obligations on ministers to act on his mother's concerns are limited.
Never mind, love, I don't doubt you've soaked the British taxpayer for all this. World-class left-wing lawyers don't work for peanuts, after all...
Gareth Peirce, of Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, (Ed: Aha!) said that while Ms Elgizouli thinks her son should be prosecuted, she argues that it should take place within accordance of international human rights standards.
Nope, they only apply to humans.
3 comments:
Even if he was British I don't see the problem. We can't just cooperate with countries that have exactly the same laws and punishment system as ours.
Of course, I can see why you might baulk at China, or some tinpot African regime, sure, but not the US.
I imagine that those holding the evidence can be compelled to testify anyway and would take such a request from a US court pretty seriously. Why it should be up to a minister to order testimony be withheld on any grounds is beyond me.
"Of course, I can see why you might baulk at China, or some tinpot African regime, sure, but not the US."
To the usual suspects, the US is considered worse!
"Why it should be up to a minister to order testimony be withheld on any grounds is beyond me."
Me too. Maybe that's why they get paid the big bucks?
Post a Comment