Saturday, April 9, 2011

It may be the law, but it isn't justice

It didn't really make anything but a footnote in the various MSM outlets, but justice for Amy Houston failed on Thursday. Amy was the young girl who was killed by Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, 33, an Iraqi Kurd and a failed asylum seeker who was already banned from driving, who left Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

A bid to deport failed asylum seeker Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed a 12-year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Lancashire, has been rejected.
Ibrahim, a 33-year-old Iraqi Kurd, had already been banned from driving when he left Amy Houston dying under the wheels of his car in Blackburn in 2003.

He was jailed for four months over the death but on his release was allowed to remain in the UK

Ibrahim had faced deportation as an illegal immigrant but was allowed to remain after an immigration judge ruled in 2009 that he had established a "family life" in the UK.

Amy's father Paul had campaigned for years to get Ibrahim deported.
The Court of Appeal judges expressed their "greatest sympathy" for Amy's family but said their only task was to decide whether there had been any error of law.

After the judgement was given, Mr Houston, who was in the public gallery, addressed the bench saying: "What about my right to a family life?"
There is some debate going on currently as to whether or not Ibrahim is married or that the children are his and he's simply using this as an excuse to stay in the UK. But whether true or not it's plain to me that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice here, oh certainly with Ibrahim the law was upheld and his human rights were not breached, though again what of Amy Houston's rights and those of her father to see justice done? 4 months in prison hardly strikes me as just and as for being allowed to stay here after he had failed to be granted asylum status...
Oh yes I'm sure they took the rights of his new family to have a "man" in their life into account, but my sympathy for them is by far outweighed by my disgust at his actions, nothing stopping them from going back to Iraq with him after all if they need him so much.
As the father said we have a system that protects the criminal.
This killer is free to live in this country despite his criminal past, but meanwhile the family of the girl are "sentenced" to live the rest of their lives in mourning, a judgement made on a legal point, NOT common sense.

4 annotations:

JuliaM said...

"Oh yes I'm sure they took the rights of his new family to have a "man" in their life into account..."

They still can, even if he's deported. They could go with him.

Good riddance.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

What Julia said (in spades!)

Of course, this is what happens when you elect a load of idiots and then let them make the law - law based on flawed beliefs of their own and in no way reflecting the views of their constitutents.

Woman on a Raft said...

Note also the subdued response in the media. This should have been a very large story since is shows that the HRA needs dumping and quick about it i.e. it is a political issue, not a legal one.

The judges have correctly interpretted and applied very bad law. There's nothing unusual in that in English law; it's been happening since the Conquest.

Now is the time to re-establish the idea of equity; that those coming before the courts to plead their rights must come with clean hands.

Andy Baxter said...

Surely revenge has no part in a civilised society? a good question don't you think?

How true, and how right I would argue. And one of the purposes of stern penalties is to prevent revenge by making it clear that the law has real teeth. But a toothless law will lead to the return of revenge among us. The bargain we strike with our rulers is that we give up the right to personal vengeance, and the endless blood-feuds that follow it. And in return, we ask our rulers to wield a stern law, dealing with wrongdoing in such a way as to drive home the moral lesson that no evil deed goes unpunished.

It's a simple contract.

Civilised, law-governed societies rest on it, but our political class prefer not to fulfill it because they haven't the moral guts to take responsibility for sending a lawfully convicted criminal to prison for a long time nor a lawfully convicted murderer to his death. It is this gutlessness among politicians, more than anything else, that has led to the abolition of the death penalty and the joke leniency of sentencing we see today.

They the political elite won't take the responsibility. This cannot be said often enough. The result is that responsibility is increasingly handed over to an unofficially armed police force, which shoots people without trial, appeal or the possibility of reprieve, and often gets it wrong.

Watch the numbers grow.

But that's only the beginning. If (as we are seeing now) respect for the Police, the criminal justice system continues to dwindle and is gathering pace especially among the abandoned honest poor, we can expect to see an increase of vigilante private 'justice', even lynch-mobs.

What the left-liberals don't seem to grasp is that if they strangle justice, revenge is what they will get. And then, rather too late, they will eventually be able to tell the difference between the two.

I wish there was some other way to explain it to them.