Law3 mins ago
Compassionate Grounds again?
12 Answers
Should the British mercenary Michael Mann ,who has been in gaol for the last year in Equatorial Guinea after being found guilty of attempting to stage a coup, have been released on compassionate grounds?
Is there a difference between him and the Lockerbie bomber?
Is there a difference between him and the Lockerbie bomber?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As an old Etonian, he is bound to have the Government and Whitehall working strenously on his behalf.
It is a completely different scenario to Al Megrahi. He was innocent and never admitted any guilt. He was also dying which would have been diplomatically awkward.
Man was undoubtedly guilty, but has shown repentance (so they say).
It is a completely different scenario to Al Megrahi. He was innocent and never admitted any guilt. He was also dying which would have been diplomatically awkward.
Man was undoubtedly guilty, but has shown repentance (so they say).
The similarities:
Both were found guilty of serious crimes.
Both men alleged they were not guilty. Mann has protested his innocence throughout, blaming (among others) Sir Mark Thatcher for the conspiracy. Despite Gromit’s assertion Al Megrahi was not “innocent”. He may have protested his innocence, but many people do. He was convicted in a properly constituted court and abandoned his appeal against that conviction. The question of his guilt or otherwise played no part in the decision on his release.
Both men are said to be unwell. However, apart from needing medical treatment from time to time neither is “dying” (any more than anybody else is). Al Megrahi has done an “Ernest Saunders” and recently recovered sufficiently from his illness be allowed home. Last July the same illness was forecast to finish him off within three months and this was the reason given for his (considerably) premature release.
The release of both men was “nothing to do with the UK government”. Al Megrahi was released by order of the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenneth MacAskill, and Mann probably on the say so of Equatorial Guinea’s President Obiang Nguema. I cannot imagine that anybody in the current government has worked too tirelessly to secure the release of Mann (Eton, Sandhurst, and the Scots Guards).
The differences:
As far as I know, Mann was not directly responsible for any deaths, Al Megrahi for 270 civilians, some of them on the ground in Scotland.
Al Megrahi was convicted and sentenced by a Scottish court whereas Mann was convicted and sentenced by a court in a country which, to say the least, is not renowned for the impartiality of its judiciary.
So my answer to your question, jake, is that if there was an overwhelming case to release Al Megrahi, there is an ever greater case for the release of Mann.
Both were found guilty of serious crimes.
Both men alleged they were not guilty. Mann has protested his innocence throughout, blaming (among others) Sir Mark Thatcher for the conspiracy. Despite Gromit’s assertion Al Megrahi was not “innocent”. He may have protested his innocence, but many people do. He was convicted in a properly constituted court and abandoned his appeal against that conviction. The question of his guilt or otherwise played no part in the decision on his release.
Both men are said to be unwell. However, apart from needing medical treatment from time to time neither is “dying” (any more than anybody else is). Al Megrahi has done an “Ernest Saunders” and recently recovered sufficiently from his illness be allowed home. Last July the same illness was forecast to finish him off within three months and this was the reason given for his (considerably) premature release.
The release of both men was “nothing to do with the UK government”. Al Megrahi was released by order of the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenneth MacAskill, and Mann probably on the say so of Equatorial Guinea’s President Obiang Nguema. I cannot imagine that anybody in the current government has worked too tirelessly to secure the release of Mann (Eton, Sandhurst, and the Scots Guards).
The differences:
As far as I know, Mann was not directly responsible for any deaths, Al Megrahi for 270 civilians, some of them on the ground in Scotland.
Al Megrahi was convicted and sentenced by a Scottish court whereas Mann was convicted and sentenced by a court in a country which, to say the least, is not renowned for the impartiality of its judiciary.
So my answer to your question, jake, is that if there was an overwhelming case to release Al Megrahi, there is an ever greater case for the release of Mann.
Not sure that the fact that Mann (Simon not Michael apologies) didn't kill anybody is particularly relevant.
His plane was impounded in Harare with £100,000 worth of weapons on board - he was scarcely planning a bloodless revolution rather to replace one despot with another
Equatorial Guinea is not exactly the highest example of legal freedoms but looking at the details behind it his claim to be off to guard diamonds in the DRC looks pretty shallow
http://www.independen...-overthrow-777194.htm
Personally I think that compassionate grounds should take into consideration the amount of a sentence already served.
In Manns case he should be repatriated to a British prison - we shouldnot be sending out the message that the government bails out mercenries when their schemes go sour
His plane was impounded in Harare with £100,000 worth of weapons on board - he was scarcely planning a bloodless revolution rather to replace one despot with another
Equatorial Guinea is not exactly the highest example of legal freedoms but looking at the details behind it his claim to be off to guard diamonds in the DRC looks pretty shallow
http://www.independen...-overthrow-777194.htm
Personally I think that compassionate grounds should take into consideration the amount of a sentence already served.
In Manns case he should be repatriated to a British prison - we shouldnot be sending out the message that the government bails out mercenries when their schemes go sour
//He was convicted in a properly constituted court and abandoned his appeal against that conviction. The question of his guilt or otherwise played no part in the decision on his release. //
A) He was tried without a Jury. The trial was was presided over by three senior judges and an additional, non-voting, judge. Though properly constituted, it was high irregular, if not unique.
B) He had to stop his appeal, or his release would not have been able to have been approved.
//However, apart from needing medical treatment from time to time neither is “dying” (any more than anybody else is).//
C) He did not self diagnose his illness. He does nave terminal cancer and is recieveing 'aggressive chemotherapy'. He has to return home as part of his release he has to report via video-link to the authorities in Scotland.
A) He was tried without a Jury. The trial was was presided over by three senior judges and an additional, non-voting, judge. Though properly constituted, it was high irregular, if not unique.
B) He had to stop his appeal, or his release would not have been able to have been approved.
//However, apart from needing medical treatment from time to time neither is “dying” (any more than anybody else is).//
C) He did not self diagnose his illness. He does nave terminal cancer and is recieveing 'aggressive chemotherapy'. He has to return home as part of his release he has to report via video-link to the authorities in Scotland.
(A) - The only way Al Megrahi (or probably Gadaffi) would “agree” to a trial was under the arrangements which you mention.
(B) - The decision was nonetheless his. He could have continued to contest the matter (albeit remaining in custody whilst he did so) but he chose not to. It was an obvious choice to make and anybody else would have done the same. But nonetheless he remains convicted.
(C) - Time will tell whether the prognosis was correct or not. So far (at least as far as the timing goes) it seems to be not quite so accurate, though I appreciate that forecasting life expectancy in such circumstances is not an exact science. I should not imagine the reporting arrangements with which he has to comply will trouble him as much as his release has troubled the families of his victims.
(B) - The decision was nonetheless his. He could have continued to contest the matter (albeit remaining in custody whilst he did so) but he chose not to. It was an obvious choice to make and anybody else would have done the same. But nonetheless he remains convicted.
(C) - Time will tell whether the prognosis was correct or not. So far (at least as far as the timing goes) it seems to be not quite so accurate, though I appreciate that forecasting life expectancy in such circumstances is not an exact science. I should not imagine the reporting arrangements with which he has to comply will trouble him as much as his release has troubled the families of his victims.
There's no good reason to release either of them, but in both it's come down to the decision of one man.
The tinpot dictator of Equatorial Guinea no doubt has his own reasons - who knows what deals have been done behind the scenes.
In the case of the Scottish release it looks like one persons misguided sense of doing the right thing, perhaps with external pressure brought to bear.
The tinpot dictator of Equatorial Guinea no doubt has his own reasons - who knows what deals have been done behind the scenes.
In the case of the Scottish release it looks like one persons misguided sense of doing the right thing, perhaps with external pressure brought to bear.
-- answer removed --
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank37 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.