Should This Man Be Given Legal Aid?

[naomi24]

A Muslim terror fanatic banned from Britain for being a threat to national security has been given legal aid in a bid to win a UK passport.

Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: “Foreigners must think we are mad. We use taxpayers’ cash to allow people who want to defeat us on the battlefield fight us in our courts.” I agree with him.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5015438/Fanatics-legal-aid-in-bid-for-passport.html#ixzz2ZHczgNwT

[Octavius]

"he certainly ‘wafted off’ to undergo terrorist training in Afghanistan"

Does the whole basis of that statement come from what you read in The Sun article in the OP?

[Gromit]

// Does one wait for a "terrorist atrocity" to establish robust evidence or does one go on unconfirmed intelligence before acting.

What would you do as home Secretary? //

If this is about Y1 then he should have been arrested on his return to the UK. They should have found out what he was up to, and he should have been sent to jail if that was terrorist related.

However, UK authorities in Afghanistan let him go without any charges. If he was a terrorist, why did they do that? It suggests the allegation of him being a terrorist is wrong.

[emmie]

it suggests that none of us know if that is the same person,

[Brancaster]

I dont think that a case such as this should then be second-guessed by the courts. The Home Sec has made a decision based probably on secret intelligence reports. This man should have no rights to appeal from abroad against decisions such as this taken in the interests of national security. He has no rights at all here let alone access to legal aid.

[Sqad]

Gromit.....I don't think that we are necessarily talking about the same person....nevertheless, thank you for for answer.

You would allow him in to fight his case through the courts on taxpayers money.....fine.

But on what charge would you arrest him? Terrorism?

I disagree, but respect your answer.

[Gromit]

sqad

There have been 21 cases of people being deprived of their citizenship since 2002 when Blair seized these powers in emergency legislation after 9/11.

here is some background on each case.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/02/26/medieval-exile-the-21-britons-stripped-of-their-citizenship/

There are two cases that could be the one referred to in the OP.

E2
Afghan-born. Deprived March 2012. Siac appeal rejected August 2012

Afghan-born E2 is described in Siac papers as a 36-year-old male who became a British citizen in 2009 and ran a business in London. While visiting his family in Pakistan, the Home Secretary deprived him of his nationality before he could return to the UK. In court papers E2 says he only learned that he had lost his citizenship on May 25 2012, when a British embassy official informed him at Dubai airport as he tried to fly home. His appeal was rejected following a partially secret Siac hearing.

Y1
Afghan-born. Deprived July 2011. Appeal dismissed May 2012. Proceedings are ongoing.

An Afghan asylum seeker, Y1 became a British citizen in 2004, married and had a son here. In 2010 he left London for Kabul, accompanied by his second wife, also British. According to court papers Y1 was arrested by UK forces in Afghanistan in summer 2011, after visiting Pakistan’s tribal areas. He was stripped of his citizenship on terrorism grounds on the same day as his release without charge in July 2011. Y1 challenged the order, arguing it would make him stateless. However Siac rejected the appeal.

In both cases, if he is a terrorist, we should interrogate him and he should go to prison if found guilty.

I think the problem arrises because there is no evidence that would stand up in court. They are charged and convicted by the Home Secretary without their knowledge. They are not allowed to know what the charges are or what the evidence is. They cannot defend themselves or question evidence or the conclusion by some unknown official. That is not British Justice.