No justice for Amy Houston
No Justice for Amy Houston: A Criminal’s Human Rights Protected
“BRITAIN has kings, but they are tyrants; she has judges, but unrighteous ones…”
These are the words of St Gildas, a monk and chronicler, writing nearly 1,500 years ago, sometime around 550AD. Gildas wrote a political tract because he believed that the political classes of the day were both morally corrupt and self serving, and that in their weakness and lack of resolution they were surrendering the country to the barbarians who would snuff out Romano-British civilization. Barbarians that they had actually invited into the country in the first place to act as mercenaries. Gildas was right, and the “Dark Ages” were beginning. I borrowed his name in 2010 for the purposes of blogging in part because I felt that the sentiments he expressed were all too relevant to the present day.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim came to this country in 2001 from Iraq, seeking asylum. Seeking then the protection of the rule of law and the tolerance of this country’s people. His application for Asylum failed, as did his appeal, but the Supine State did nothing to remove him.
By 2003 he was already banned from driving for 9 months, having been convicted of driving without a licence and without insurance. He was directly flouting that ban when he ran down 12 year old Amy Houston near her home in Darwen, Lancashire, leaving her still conscious but dying beneath his Rover car as he ran away from the scene.
Pausing there, since I have not been able to find any record of Ibrahim having gainful employment, where did the money for the car come from? Why, Ibrahim, do you claim that you can enjoy the peace and security of the protection of the law which this country offers you when you spit in its face by wilfully ignoring it? Why do you think it is right to leave a child sobbing and dying under the weight of your car and not try to help?
Ultimately, Amy’s father Paul had to make the decision to switch off her life support machine. Ibrahim was sentenced to a pitiful four months in jail (of which he served two), before being released to pursue his criminal career, which he did, racking up more driving convictions, and cautions for harassment, burglary and theft.
Eventually even the Supine State moved into gear and in 2008, six years after his application for asylum had failed, five years after this criminal left a little girl dying beneath the wheels of a car he had been banned from driving, the Border Agency began proceedings to deport Ibrahim on the grounds of “persistent criminality.”
But in the meantime, and with grim inevitability, the criminal Ibrahim had sired two children.
And thus it came to pass that despite Ibrahim’s “abhorrent” behaviour, the Immigration Tribunal ruled that his and his children’s right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights meant that he could not now be deported.
Yesterday the Court of Appeal confirmed that decision.
Ibrahim is a serial criminal who repays the land from which he has claimed succour by floating its laws, abusing its citizens, and in so doing caused the death of an innocent child. He wasn’t even man enough or decent enough to try help her. He escaped a lengthy prison sentence because in legal terms it was “an accident”, but it seems to me that it is no accident if you run someone down when you have no driving licence and you have been banned from driving. It was the direct consequence of his deliberate unlawful action. His “right” and the “rights” of the children he has spawned to family life are not absolute. A murderer – and I have no qualms in describing Ibrahim as such in moral if not legal terms – has no right to be protected from life in prison when he kills.
As it happens, I do not want that for Ibrahim. Why should the taxpayer spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in locking up, guarding, feeding, clothing and indeed protecting this vile excuse for a man? No, he should be returned to the cess pit from whence he crawled in the first place.
His rights to see his children and their rights to see him? I am afraid as harsh as it may seem I do not care. Is the law of the land to be trampled and abused by this alien criminal without sanction?
As my namesake might have said: Woe to the land where the law, and the judges, takes the side of those who abuse it!
In this case the law is not an ass. It is a disgrace, and it betrays and insults the people it purports to protect. It is a world turned upside down. There are too many Judges in this country who are hidebound by process, lacking understanding, devoid of moral purpose and in thrall to what in short hand I will call Political Correctness. Heedless of the good and the weak, they defend the barbarian and the wolf.
What is that distant sound I hear? I believe it is my illustrious namesake, spinning in his tomb…
Gildas the Monk 2011
-
April 9, 2011 at 14:35 -
You can have whatever laws you want but ultimately if you have bad judges it won’t make any difference. Do we need a new Bill of Rights? Or do we need to look at who sits in judgment?
-
April 9, 2011 at 15:43 -
“Do we need a new Bill of Rights? Or do we need to look at who sits in judgment?”
Why choose? Can we not multitask?
-
-
April 9, 2011 at 14:46 -
Gildas, you are so right, about so many things, and this post is no exception. You are so right, in fact, that to deny it would in itself be an offence – against plain common sense. Judges hidebound by process – yes, and by blindly following precedent, even when that precedent is either not applicable to the new circumstances, or just plainly wrong; this requires much less moral courage or effort than thinking for themselves. You used the word Justice. That is a commodity as lacking in courts of the UK as is Democracy in countries which claim the word in their titles.
Your article highlights a few of the ways in which our ruling class has become so unreconcilably divorced from the peasantry they now suppress.-
April 9, 2011 at 16:54 -
Thank you
-
-
April 9, 2011 at 14:55 -
Why does that “Family Life” have to be here? Do they not have them in Pakistan as well.
We’re fucked. UK FUBAR.
-
April 9, 2011 at 15:42 -
Well said.
-
April 9, 2011 at 15:58 -
It’s an apalling judicial miscarriage of morality and fairness.
-
April 9, 2011 at 16:27 -
100% agreement, and summed up well by J.Poynton.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy etc” -
April 9, 2011 at 18:20 -
The rumour up here in East Lancs is that Ibrahim worked as an unlicenced taxi driver. White drivers in the area say it is common practice for asians to share a car and a badge so the car can be kept on the road almost 24 hours a day.
It is also well known here in Accrington that two convicted rapists are driving cabs. Whether they are sharing licences of have obtained livences using false id I could not say.
Politicians bang on about a fair society but it is very simple to promote fairness. Just pass a law that says, SAME RULES APPLY and a zero tolderance policy in enforcing it.-
April 9, 2011 at 18:28 -
I have some experience of that for reasons I can’t go into. Suffice to say I think that is highly likely
-
-
April 9, 2011 at 19:05 -
Allow me to be crass, to make a point.
Purely in monetary terms, how much has this piece of human detritus cost your country? Gilda’s exposition mentions:
An application for asylum.
An appeal of the asylum determination.
Legal costs related to driving infractions
Investigation costs related to the murder.
Medical costs for the unfortunate victim
Legal costs related to defence of the crime
Legal costs related to more driving infractions
Legal costs related to criminal charges, burglary, theft, harassment
Border agency costs related to deportation proceedings.
Court of Appeal adjudication.Of course an unemployed refugee would incur other costs. Consider
Six years of jobseekers allowance, and housing allowance, related healthcare costs and healthcare costs of his two children, assorted winter fuel allowances and all the other benefits available in a socialist paradise.
The not inconsiderable costs of administering these allowances..As I said a crass exercise, but do you doubt (with the horrendous cost of the bureaucracy and judicial staff) that this filth has cost the country less than a couple million pounds expenditure? And for what benefit? None, that anybody can discern.
This entire enterprise (because I do believe it has been setup to enrich a certain class of do-gooders, like Cherie Blair and socialist human rights advocates) is costing you dearly and degrading the goodwill of honest people like Amy Houston’s parents, friends and family(and hopefully anybody who reads Gildas).
As Gildas points out you have an excess of law but minimal justice, and it has been politically motivated to allow excessive immigration, to enhance the socialist vote base. Why deport a criminal when there is still the chance of a liebour vote, no matter what the cost in money or pain and suffering.
-
April 9, 2011 at 19:07 -
Good points. And how much will be spent on his children?
And why?
-
-
April 9, 2011 at 20:15 -
If the title ‘Courts of Justice’ replaced ‘Courts of Law’ and judges were reminded daily of the change, it might, just might, be a first step to a series of much needed changes for our lamentable judiciary. Unless something happens that values fairness I fear this land may yet see serious race riots.
-
April 9, 2011 at 21:14 -
I had hoped for economic collapse so that there simply wasn’t any money for this kind of shit anymore and that the people would not put up with it.
I now hate my country.
Is there anyway a fund could be started for the father to make his appeal ?
-
April 9, 2011 at 21:15 -
PS
I know a cop.
“I’m proud of my country. What other nation would provide a choice of meals to meet the dietary needs of prisoners from other nations ?”
He wasn’t being sarcastic.
-
April 9, 2011 at 21:47 -
deporting him does not deny him his right to a family life he can take his family with him if they so wish, if they don’t want to go tough, that is not our problem, or is that just too simplistic?
-
April 9, 2011 at 23:48 -
What changes are you all asking for, to be clear?
Failed Asylum Seekers who the authorities say cannot be deported, should be deported anyway if they have been convicted of crime?
All failed Asylum Seekers should be deported?
No foreigners should be allowed in?
All drivers who cause death should be convicted of murder?
No foreigners should drive cabs?
Cab drivers should not share a cab?
I agree that this is a horrifying tale, but being horrified is not enough. Knee-jerk reactions usually create more problems than they solve.
I agree that this guy does not deserve any consideration, but our law has to be specific or we will do ourselves much harm.-
April 10, 2011 at 02:34 -
Zaphod said……”What changes are you all asking for, to be clear?”
1.Repeal Human Rights legislation
2.Remove UK from the EU and its meddlesome bureaucracy
3.Rescind membership of UN and other extra-terrestial nanny organizations.
4.Judges selected by local ballot.
5.Overhaul welfare legislation to ensure immigrants buy private insurance for health care for first five years,
6.Impose a five year qualifying period on immigrants before they are eligible for any benefits
7. Impose immediate moratorium on acceptance of refugees.
8. Immediately recall armed services from foreign wars.
9. Overhaul welfare legislation and base payments to ALL able-bodied claimants on a percentage of earnings in the previous ten years.That would be a good start.
As to your comment that knee-jerk reactions might cause harm to yourselves, that is a sensible comment, however tremendous harm is already being inflicted on the population as money is wasted on frivolous notions to enrich the undeserving and avoid any real attempts at justice..
None of these proposals target Aso Mohammed Ibrahim individually, what I wish for him is some good old fashioned frontier justice, something that strikes terror into the hearts of anybody who attempts to replicate his actions and disgusts our febrile law makers so that they finally understand the will of the electorate.
-
-
April 10, 2011 at 00:10 -
@Zaphod
All very conceptual, however, despite much legislation, this is still a common law system, rather than, e.g., Roman law. So it would be possible for judges to do enough thinking to arrive at a specific solution rather than a general one.
And, to aid my understanding, do you think the outcome was right (as compared to correct?)
If it would have been possible to hand out some serious jail time for all these offences (more expensive than deportation but hey, the taxes have got to be spent on something) would that also be infringing his human rights to see his children?
-
April 10, 2011 at 13:05 -
Not exactly an ideal roll model for his children is he.
-
April 10, 2011 at 22:22 -
@Cascadian,
Thanks, that’s a reasonable set of suggestions. I’d agree with most of them, and none are wrong. I’m not keen on “frontier justice” myself, but I’m still in the process of shrugging off the old programming. Maybe I’ll come around.@Gentoo,
The outcome was possibly “correct”, but I agree, it sure doesn’t feel right.My point though, is that hatred is wasted on the perpetrator. It should be directed at those who engineer the dysfunctional system of reward and punishment.
-
April 10, 2011 at 23:13 -
It’s worth remembering that much of this is because the UKBA messed up in the first place, failing to deport him before he ran anybody over and then not deporting him immediately after conviction because he fell in to that hole whereby the UKBA had no idea where he was and were unable to track him when he left prison. On the last day of his sentence he should have been on a plane and released in Iraq. UKBA now want the court to carry all the blame for the situation they created, allowing rights to be claimed which wouldn’t exist if they had done their job properly in the first place.
Considering that Ibrahim left a child dying, I’d say he shouldn’t be allowed access to his own children (if they are his, and I won’t accept that without a DNA test) let alone anyone else’s. The idea of “respect for family life” is a mockery when it comes to a menace like Mohammed Ibrahim. I’ve known women to have their children removed for insisting on clinging to men they believe are wrongly accused, let alone for hanging on to a man who is a persistent criminal who has already killed one child.
It was doubly unfortunate that the CPS went for a lower charge in order to get the conviction squared away neatly. I don’t care if Amy ran out in front of him; leaving an accident when you may be the only person who can raise the alarm and had the obligation to do so should have been punished severely. He may not have made any difference ultimately to the child’s survival, but to be injured and abandoned like that is disgusting. Even the RSPCA would make a point of charging it as “causing unnecessary suffering”. Are we really saying a little girl is worth less than a run-over dog?
My solution is that the UKBA are put in charge of deportations and their judgment is made absolute. That way we will save the cost of umpteen appeals, appeals lawyers, and the wages of the immigration judges. It is still possible that Ibrahim’s alleged partner may have wanted to appeal. Fair enough, the appeals procedure is for UK nationals, but she can do it from here or she can follow him there if it is so important to her.
-
April 11, 2011 at 07:16 -
Any sentence which contains the words, “UKBA, judgement, absolute” is utterly devoid of meaning.
You cannot possibly know how appalling UKBA are until you have experienced their judgement several times. Honestly, they are unbelievably bad at judgement, and their integrity is way below zero. I feel the need to use language unsuitable to this blog. Obo the clown’s vocabulary springs to mind.-
April 11, 2011 at 10:44 -
And your suggestion is …what? Carry on with chucking millions of pounds down a hole whereby a judge who doesn’t have to pay the bill over-rides the UKBA who finally got off their backsides to do their job, and then the cost of the subsequent two cases and all the on-costs of supporting Mr Ibrahim during the rest of his useless baby-farming life?
My suggestion is simpler, cheaper and may work. The UKBA do their job properly and swiftly, and when they say a person must go, that’s it. Any appeal, if there are grounds for an appeal, must be done from the country of origin. If immigration lawyers here feel so strongly about it, they can do the work pro bono and if it turns out the UK BA loses, the lawyers will be paid out a flat fee (to stop them racking up expenses).
Your justified dislike of the UKBA is preventing you from reading the comment which was emphatic in its criticism of the UKBA. The meaning is also perfectly clear. UKBA is the deciding agency and should only be over-ruled in very limited circumstances as it is their job to implement immigration policy. It is not the business of judges to take quasi-political decisions to frustrate the will of the elected representatives who have finally begun to realize they are sitting on a powder-keg and letting-off sparks.
-
-
-
April 11, 2011 at 23:22 -
@Woman on a raft.
I haven’t commented on the rights or wrongs of the case or the processes involved. Just the lynch mob mentality of some commenters. I can do this without offering any useful suggestions for alternative legal procedures.
Your assumption that UKBA could be relied on to make anything resembling a reasoned or just decision, is horribly wrong. They are much more perverse and unprincipled than you could possibly know. I can’t expect you to take my word for it, but it has to be said.
Punishment for killing by road accident should not be affected by one’s country of origin, this is my feeling. If someone is permitted to be here, they should be subject to the same legal processes and sanctions as you and I. It should be possible for these commentors to disagree with me on this without foaming at the mouth. (I don’t mean you.)
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }