Why should Pakistan accept a British criminal?

[VCheng]

Bang on the mark sir - bang on

Really? Seems pretty far from the actual topic now, doesn't it?




(Never mind that the train track being used as a childish metaphor is rusted, out of alignment, with missing sleepers and even sections. LOL.)

 

[Distant_Observer]

UK should do the right thing, meet Pakistan in the middle and return the fugitives.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[delta2]

So they are admitting their justice system does not deliver justice? Or are they saying his race/skin colour determines the intensity of punishment?

Why should Pakistan, a multi-ethnic state, go along with this charade of race/ethnicity/skin colour based value of a citizenship?

Make a big deal out of this and call it what it is, a racially driven vendetta scheme.

 

[delta2]

It will depend entirely on what each side can offer the other, to get what it wants, out of the arrangement, in return. If Pakistan revokes his nationality then UK cannot render him stateless. So that may not be likely as a practical solution.

It may not come to even that. Applying an additional punishment for a crime for which the sentence has already been completed, by a retroactively applicable amendment would not be easy to get through UK courts. If it ever comes to that.



Your personal views, understandable as they might be, have no role to play in the provision of justice for all, equally.

After all, it would take ignorance of epic proportions to claim that a "free man" who "has served his sentence" somehow does not deserve anyone even "advocating on behalf of this individual and his right to exist freely", because that is utterly antithetical to the very concept of justice.

He committed a crime. He was caught and punished by due process. He has served his sentence.

Any civilized society with rule of law would, and should, find it difficult to go beyond that as a matter of principle.

It takes courage to stand up for what is right, no matter what, not only when it might be convenient to do so. Only ignorant fools follow where their blind emotions might lead without control, since that is the recipe for chaos.

Are you talking about the concept of justice in regards to European powers that are actively carrying out a genocide as we speak?

 

[delta2]

Pakistan should issue a strong statement and condemn the idea of race or skin colour based citizenship status being proposed by the UK.

 

[nahtanbob]

Pakistan should make exactly this point. This person and his crimes are a product of thier society.

If British police had taken his first victims seriously then he would have not been able to get away with his crimes for so long.

Well if you grow up in USA with a green card and you commit serious crimes, you can get deported. If you become a US citizen and then commit crimes, you won't be deported. I assume this would be the standard.

but if UK uses this as an excuse or threat to stop all immigration from Pakistan, Pakistan will bend

 

[nahtanbob]

Not necessarily.

Here in the US, there are numerous documented cases of naturalized citizens having been stripped of their citizenship. The process has been administration neutral.

the rules are specific to denaturalization. the bar is high

 

[nahtanbob]

UK government will change law so grooming gang ringleader can be deported

The home secretary is expected to set out on Monday how she plans to amend the 1971 Immigration Act.

www.bbc.co.uk

even if law is changed, how can it be retroactive

 

[delta2]

Well if you grow up in USA with a green card and you commit serious crimes, you can get deported. If you become a US citizen and then commit crimes, you won't be deported. I assume this would be the standard.

but if UK uses this as an excuse or threat to stop all immigration from Pakistan, Pakistan will bend

No, the issue could be a bigger one here. Lots and lots of wealthy people from all over the world go to the UK in order to acquire the passport, what if their passports can be revoked using some excuse?

Everything the City of London has is stolen, but that is exactly where many of the Pakistani ruling class run away to with the wealth they steal from Pakistan.

It all really depends on what mood the Pakistani deep state is in. They could either happily comply which seems like they mostly will, or they could make this a hill to die on. Which in turn would forever end the so called "aura" of the Scotland Yard as some investigative force to be reckoned with.

Unfortunately the puppets put in power will do the bidding of their master.

 

[nahtanbob]

No, the issue could be a bigger one here. Lots and lots of wealthy people from all over the world go to the UK in order to acquire the passport, what if their passports can be revoked using some excuse?

Everything the City of London has is stolen, but that is exactly where many of the Pakistani ruling class run away to with the wealth they steal from Pakistan.

It all really depends on what mood the Pakistani deep state is in. They could either happily comply which seems like they mostly will, or they could make this a hill to die on. Which in turn would forever end the so called "aura" of the Scotland Yard as some investigative force to be reckoned with.

Unfortunately the puppets put in power will do the bidding of their master.

General rule is if someone acquires citizenship of country and renounces citizenship of prior country. Unless he lies during naturalization process or conceals crimes committed before naturalization, the citizenship cannot be revoked. that is standard in USA.

I won't worry about the wealthy. If not London, move to Dubai or some other place

 

[EugeneP]

even if law is changed, how can it be retroactive

Law can be effective retroactively. It is more common than you think.

In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Historically, all acts of Parliament before 1793 were ex post facto legislation, inasmuch as their date of effect was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was rectified by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793. Some laws are still passed retrospectively: e.g., the Pakistan Act 1990 (by which the United Kingdom amended its legislation consequent to the Commonwealth of Nations having re-admitted Pakistan as a member) was one such law; despite being passed on 29 June 1990, section 2 subsection 3 states that "This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st October 1989", nine months before it was enacted. Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but some legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this. For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 created an ex post facto jurisdiction of British courts over war crimes committed during the Second World War. Another important example of a case which shows the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy in action is in relation to Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate, where the decision of the courts was overridden with retrospective effect by the War Damage Act 1965, which changed the law on compensation resulting from scorched earth actions in Burma during the war. More recently, the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 retroactively overrode a controversial court judgment resulting from an error in the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that would potentially have invalidated thousands of criminal convictions. A court faced with an ex post facto act of Parliament could theoretically issue a declaration of incompatibility with Article 7, but would still be required to enforce it, as UK courts do not have the power of judicial review with respect to primary legislation. Another example of an ex post facto criminal law in the UK is the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This law allows people acquitted of murder and certain other serious offences to be retried if there is "new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence" that the acquitted person really was guilty. This Act applies retroactively and can be used to re-prosecute people who were acquitted before it came into force in 2005, or even before it was passed in 2003. As a result, two of the defendants who were acquitted in the murder of Stephen Lawrence were allowed to be retried, even though this murder occurred in 1993 and the defendants had been acquitted in 1996. Many people have criticized the Criminal Justice Act because of its essential abolition of prohibition against both ex post facto and double jeopardy laws. Taxation law has on multiple occasions been changed to retrospectively disallow tax avoidance schemes. The most significant example known concerns double-taxation treaty arrangements where the Finance Act 2008 with BN66 retrospectively amended 1987 legislation, creating large tax liabilities for 3,000 people where no liability existed before.

 

[nahtanbob]

Law can be effective retroactively. It is more common than you think.

In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Historically, all acts of Parliament before 1793 were ex post facto legislation, inasmuch as their date of effect was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was rectified by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793. Some laws are still passed retrospectively: e.g., the Pakistan Act 1990 (by which the United Kingdom amended its legislation consequent to the Commonwealth of Nations having re-admitted Pakistan as a member) was one such law; despite being passed on 29 June 1990, section 2 subsection 3 states that "This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st October 1989", nine months before it was enacted. Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but some legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this. For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 created an ex post facto jurisdiction of British courts over war crimes committed during the Second World War. Another important example of a case which shows the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy in action is in relation to Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate, where the decision of the courts was overridden with retrospective effect by the War Damage Act 1965, which changed the law on compensation resulting from scorched earth actions in Burma during the war. More recently, the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 retroactively overrode a controversial court judgment resulting from an error in the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that would potentially have invalidated thousands of criminal convictions. A court faced with an ex post facto act of Parliament could theoretically issue a declaration of incompatibility with Article 7, but would still be required to enforce it, as UK courts do not have the power of judicial review with respect to primary legislation. Another example of an ex post facto criminal law in the UK is the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This law allows people acquitted of murder and certain other serious offences to be retried if there is "new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence" that the acquitted person really was guilty. This Act applies retroactively and can be used to re-prosecute people who were acquitted before it came into force in 2005, or even before it was passed in 2003. As a result, two of the defendants who were acquitted in the murder of Stephen Lawrence were allowed to be retried, even though this murder occurred in 1993 and the defendants had been acquitted in 1996. Many people have criticized the Criminal Justice Act because of its essential abolition of prohibition against both ex post facto and double jeopardy laws. Taxation law has on multiple occasions been changed to retrospectively disallow tax avoidance schemes. The most significant example known concerns double-taxation treaty arrangements where the Finance Act 2008 with BN66 retrospectively amended 1987 legislation, creating large tax liabilities for 3,000 people where no liability existed before.

if a Nazi war criminal lied about his war record in WW2 and obtained British citizenship after WW2, it is obvious grounds to denaturalize them. In case of US naturalization application, they ask you a bunch of questions. Lying about any of them can lead to denaturalization

allows people acquitted of murder and certain other serious offences to be retried if there is "new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence" that the acquitted person really was guilty.

common. this is standard in many judicial systems. I know we have double jeopardy provisions in USA.

 

[VCheng]

Are you talking about the concept of justice

I am talking about the geopolitical principles that apply to negotiations between two sovereign countries if they find it in their respective national interests to exchange certain individuals due to their criminal records.

 

[delta2]

General rule is if someone acquires citizenship of country and renounces citizenship of prior country. Unless he lies during naturalization process or conceals crimes committed before naturalization, the citizenship cannot be revoked. that is standard in USA.

I won't worry about the wealthy. If not London, move to Dubai or some other place

Usually countries have agreements over dual-nationality status for their respective citizens.

But the main point is, the guy was put in prison, did his time, then why punish him more for the same crime? Would they do the same to a different person of a different race/ethnicity/heritage?

This is clearly a case of a racial hierarchical citizenship and that is what this must be called!

 

[delta2]

I am talking about the geopolitical principles that apply to negotiations between two sovereign countries if they find it in their respective national interests to exchange certain individuals due to their criminal records.

If the PMLN govt now makes such demands from one of their masters, then where would the Sherif Clan run to when they are not in power anymore? The British will deport the whole Sharif Family the next time a Real government comes to power in Pakistan and wants to put these thieves in prisons for thousands of years for their crimes.

Geopolotics is determined from a point of hard power and the potential of a damage a country can do or take.