The UK Director of Public Prosecutions has declined to prosecute two terror suspects, Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan, who, along with the more celebrated 'radical Muslim cleric', Abu Hamza, are shortly expected to be extradited to the United States.
The offences of which they are accused, in most normal senses of the phrase, 'took place' in the United Kingdom but they are connected with a website which was hosted in the United States. Babar Ahmad has been detained without charge or trial in this country since 2004 and the refusal of the authorities to prosecute Abu Hamza in this country has for many years puzzled people from the Queen downwards.
The DPP has now stated 'I have refused to give my consent to Mr [Karl] Watkin to bring a private prosecution against Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. The underlying evidence in support of these alleged offences is in the possession of the USA. The material provided to me in support of the proposed private prosecution has been carefully considered by a specialist lawyer in the CPS special crime and counter-terrorism division.'
Evidence seized by the Metropolitan Police in 2003 was passed, for no clear reason, by them to the United States Authorities, but now, it seems, possession of persons is more easily transferred between states (as we have seen in other contexts since the beginning of the War on Terror, or the 'Long War' as others like to call it) than is possession of evidence, and the United Kingdom authorities would like to see persons removed to the United States. The fastidious UK is these days often keen to see unsavoury characters shipped off to other jurisdictions, even some equally unsavoury, to meet their legal or illegal fates.
Mr Karl Watkin (Member of the British Empire), who holds to the Quixotic belief that British people charged with offences conducted in British jurisdiction should be prosecuted in British courts, is separately seeking permission from magistrates to bring a private prosecution that does not require the DPP's consent. Meanwhile, the most senior British judge recently expressed his anger that cases such as this should have dragged on for so many years. How things have changed since Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Why do not accused people realise that it is 'in nobody's interests' for them to pursue every last avenue avail able to them under the law? Clearly the law should change and doubtless it soon will.
