One of the disturbing trends in recent years is the insidious pressure on people to report matters to the authorities on pain of prosecution. Whether it is the banker who is supposed to spot money laundering or the solicitor who must betray client confidentiality, to informing on one’s spouse. Well, the jury in that case made a good decision.
The wife of Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the convicted airliner bomb plotter, has been found not guilty of failing to pass on information that would be useful in preventing an act of terrorism.
Cossor Ali, 28, was cleared by a jury at Inner London Crown Court following a three-week trial.
Thank goodness for that. The idea that we should inform the authorities on what we might think people are up to – that failing to do so is a criminal offence is an obscene aberration of the law and I am pleased to see that a jury returned what I would call a correct result, but what the government would probably regard as a perverse one.
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Mrs Ali knew her husband planned mass murder by targeting passenger jets but failed to tell police.
But the jury believed Mrs Ali’s defence that she did not know anything about it.
Therein lies the heart of the matter; we are supposed to know about and therefore report the activities of others – including spouses. If we don’t know, then we are complicit because we didn’t grass them up. A no win, catch 22 situation.
Just as well we have juries that can exercise common sense.
They’ll be doing away with jury trials next.
I don’t have enough facts to say much regarding this particular case. The linked article makes it sound like she knew, but the jury clearly thought otherwise.
In general though, surely if I know someone has committed a murder and am complicit it keeping it quiet, that makes me an accessory. Likewise if I know someone is planning mass murder and do nothing about it. Being an accessory is a proper crime, not one of these new-fangled ‘possessing information that might be possibly likely to be mildly interesting to a terrorist’ kind of things.
“During the trial, prosecutors argued that Mrs Ali knew her husband planned mass murder by targeting passenger jets but failed to tell police.”
To know that and do nothing would be reprehensible. Are you saying otherwise? If so, it’s probably the first time I’ve disagreed with anything I’ve read here.
The likelihood of her knowing is remote at best. If you are planning a major terrorist atrocity, you tell as few people as possible. The jury having heard the evidence came to the same conclusion – unanimously. I’m inclined to trust the jury rather more than I’m inclined to trust either the Telegraph or the prosecution.
From the reporting, it would appear that the CPS assumed that she was aware of her husband’s activities and therefore, by default, failed to pass on information that may be useful in preventing a terrorist act. Pure thought crime.
What bothers me is the idea that we should be reporting people even if we don’t know what they are up to or are not aware of the significance of what we do know. That’s the underlying issue with this case. It’s the same principle as the other precedents that I mentioned – that people can be prosecuted for not informing the authorities if they are privy to information even if they don’t realise it or the significance – solicitors, for example. The idea that not doing something even if we don’t know what we know or don’t know should be a criminal offence is what is wrong here.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the prosecution’s case relied entirely on comments made in a diary. Taken out of context diary entries can be made to appear damning and should always be treated with extreme caution. Fortunately, the jury had sufficient common sense to do so.
Indeed. I certainly agree with all you’ve said in response.
Yes it was an excellent result.
When I did criminal law at uni ten years ago, mere knowledge that somebody was about to commit an offence was not a crime*. I know that they’ve written a new law that says it is, but thankfully the jury let her off.
* One of the hallmarks of a police being that it is a crime not to report knowledge of a crime.
lf you ‘believe’ someone that you live with is going to commit murder and you feel that you are going to report it there are burning questions to be answered.
Will the police believe you and secondly are they competent enough to deal with it? lf not, you’ll be putting yourself in extreme danger if you report it.
1. From the person you are reporting and 2. other members of his group.
… and if the suspect is clever enough that there is no evidence to prove your suspicions then your life expectancy will be somewhat short.