Muslim Men Enforcing Sharia Law...

[Gromit]

...not prosecuted for religiously aggravated offences.

The 3 men attacked members of the public for holding hands, being immodestly dressed and drinking alcohol. They said the wanted Sharia Law and were patroling Bethnal Green.

// "When, on occasions, a person shows their intolerance of another individual, whether by aggression or violence and in such a way as to cause real fear to the individual, then the law can be invoked to protect that individual."

The judge said that her sentencing powers were restricted because the prosecution had chosen not to prefer religiously aggravated offences. //

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/muslim-vigilantes-jailed-sharia-law-attacks-london

How can this possibly not be religiously aggravated? They attacked people for not following a religious law. Why were they let of this more serious offence?

[sandyRoe]

For the sake of good community relations? Perhaps the DPP didn't want to be seen to be making martyrs.

[Gromit]

Hope not sandy. That would be letting down victims of violent crime.

[shoota]

Try again......
The CPS nowadays will only go to court with offences they stand a very good chance of winning, so if the evidence was even slightly dodgy for the religious aggravation element they would choose the safer option.

[sandyRoe]

True enough. But expediency must have played some part in their thinking.

[shoota]

There MAY even have been an element of plea bargaining - a guilty plea offered if the religious aggravating factor were removed.
The CPS are under tremendous pressure to reduce costs and get convictions so that offer would hve been very inviting.
With the vagaries of trial by jury anything can haappen - a conviction is not assured.

[hc4361]

Reliously aggravated offences - doesn't the victim have to be of a particular faith for this offence?

Attacked because (s)he is Christian/Sikh/Jew etc not because they are not a particular faith. Each of the victims in this case could be of a different faith or no faith at all.

[anotheoldgit]

Unlike you Gromit to post such a thread, are you trying to steal my thunder?

Once again a clear cut example of double standards being employed where ethnic minorities are concerned.

The Judge even had to make the obligatory smoothing over remark before daring to say anything slightly derogative.

/// Passing sentence on Friday, Judge Rebecca Poulet QC told them that while Islam was a peaceful religion, their conduct was "unfortunately anything but".///

Islam a peaceful religion?????????? Where has she been?

[VHG]

slippery slope......

[shoota]

That's a good point hc, probably why CPS opted to leave it out; a qick flip through the legislation shows that the attack should be as a result of the VICTIMS religious beliefs not the attackers.
It may have been possible to get a conviction and establish a precedent but unless I've missed a large chunk of law therev would be a barn door for the defence lawyers to drive through under the current wording and the CPS wouldn't take that chance these days.

[shoota]

///To prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated, the prosecution has to prove the "basic" offence followed by racial or religious aggravation, as defined in section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998. An offence will be racially or religiously aggravated if:


a) at the time of the offence (or shortly before or after), the offender demonstrates to the victim hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group, or

b) the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership (or presumed membership) of that group.///

Thats from here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

[shoota]

There is a great gaping hole in this legislation for offences motivated by the offenders religion.

[Gromit]

Not sure I agree hc. Attacking someone for not being a muslim (by their behaviour) would be religiously aggravated, wouldn't it?

[hc4361]

Gromit, she Shoota's post at 12.03

[sp1814]

Daft loophole in the law.

Extremely glad they were caught, but I'm now wondering why the 23 year old couldn't be named 'for legal reasons'.

[FredPuli43]

hc is correct. The definition of racially or religiously aggravated is in s28(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act , 1998. That requires the victim, not the defendant, to be a member of a racial or religious group and the hostility towards the victim to be based on, or the defendant's motivation to be wholly or partly based on, the victim's membership of such a group.

Here the hostility was based on the defendants' membership of a religious group, not the victims'. It did not matter to them whether the victims belonged to any particular religion or several religions or no religion, or that they were Muslims who did not share the defendants' views on Islamic law or were non-observant Muslims

Therefore the CPS were correct and HHJ Poulet QC in error. She should have read the Act or her copy of Archbold (Archbold's Criminal Pleading) which every practitioner has and which contains it.

[douglas9401]

They're more to be pitied than scorned, Brainwashed until the first and last thing in their mind is 'God is great'. Or are they just bullying thugs using 'the religion of peace' as a front?
In any event it looks like law and order taking a step back to appease and placate those who think they have a right to dictate the terms on which we live in this country.
Maybe convene the Moslem council and put them straight in no uncertain terms as to their position in the UK as Moslems and to pass this on to their flock, ie, exactly the same as everybody else. No extra rights or concessions.

[ummmm]

I would say they were bullying thugs.

[FredPuli43]

Could not be named for legal reasons, in the case of an adult, means that they are facing a further trial. The jury in that trial ought not to know of this conviction. If the name is given, they could know that he has the conviction.

[Gromit]

Thanks shoota, you have answered my question. The law seems to be the problem. Someone motivated by religion who attacks someone they percieve as not belonging to THEIR religion is let off the aggravated charge because the victim has to be target for their religion (and not lack of it).

The law should be changed to protect us from religiously inspired nutters.

[sp1814]

Ah!

Thanks FredPuli43...that makes sense.