All of that is bad enough but let's now add a few more ingredients into the mix. Firstly Mr Ibrahim should not have been in the country because he was a failed asylum seeker, then lets look at his criminal record.
2002: Caution for criminal damage
Jan 2003: Fined for driving without insurance, a licence or MOT.
June 2003: Six month ban for the same offence.
Oct 2003: Banned for a further nine months for driving without insurance, having no licence and having insufficient tyre tread.
Nov 2003: Driving whilst banned, he hits Amy Houston and kills her. Sentence to four months in prison.
2004: Convicted of possession of cannabis.
2005: Conviction for burglary.
2006: Convicted of driving while disqualified and without insurance. Given a two year supervision order, banned from driving for three years and given a curfew.
2009: Convicted of harassment.
What I find so amazing about all this is, what crime do you need to commit before our judicial system takes you seriously? This man had been banned from driving 3 times yet still drove, he did not even hold a licence, what is the point of a law if our courts don't uphold it. This man has not only committed a number of crimes but is actually in this country illegally. Each one of those crimes should have ended with Mr Ibrahim serving a prison sentence. I am a strong believer in tolerance and justice and what I see here is these two things being abused. This man has abused our society, he has high jacked our tolerant society and stuck two fingers up at it. He has abused our justice system, and used the insidious European Human Rights Act (EHRA)to stay in this country when he should have been thrown out.
Imagine being Paul Houston, the father of Amy, how would you feel? This man was not asking that Mr Ibrahim serve a longer sentence, he just wanted him to be forced to leave this country. Mr Ibrahim's lawyers used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees his right to a private and family life with his children. At the court hearing Ibrahim told the court that he had become a father figure to two children which his partner had had from a previous relationship, he said he even helped them with their homework . This was dismissed by the judge as 'clearly not credible' after Ibrahim admitted he could barely speak a word of English. The judge accepted that Ibrahim's behaviour was abhorrent and branded his evidence as contradictory and unsatisfactory, yet he still ruled in his favour. I find all of this absolutely incredible.
I suppose you could look at it through purely legal eyes and detach yourself from the emotion of the case, and I suppose these judges have to. But when you hear the evidence of Paul Houston it is very hard to do this, and I think you would have to be totally heartless and callous not to feel at least a little bit of sympathy with him. Paul Houston wrote this:
"On the evening of November 23 2003, Mr Ibrahim struck Amy. He didn't kill her outright, she was still conscious. She was fully aware of what was happening around her even though she had the full weight of the engine block of the car on top of her, she was crying because she was in a lot of pain...he could have at least tried to help.
Amy suffered for six hours before the doctors advised me to switch off the life support machine... it was highly unlikely she would survive and if she was to live she would be a 'cabbage'.
The image of Amy taking her final breath, dying a foot away from me as I sat by her bedside holding her hand praying for a miracle, will stay with me till the day I die"
What I can't get away from thinking is, what if that happened to me? What is even more heartbreaking is, Paul Houston for medical reasons cannot father anymore children and Amy was his only child. In all of this Paul Houston has asked this simple question, what about his right to a family? Ibrahim on that November day took that away from him.
I do believe this case and many others highlights the problem with the European Human Rights Act, according to government figures, 350 foreign criminals have escaped deportation under this so called human rights act, and we are talking about murderers and rapists. I believe it is about time we withdrew from the EHRA , as too often it has been abused by those who would have under normal circumstances been thrown out of the country.
David Cameron when in opposition said this "The problem for this (Labour) Government is that the Human Rights Act is their legislation and they appear to be blind to its failings. We ought to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights that we can write ourselves that sets out clearly our rights and responsibilities". Since these word were spoken Mr Cameron has done nothing about this scandal. Just a little aside, we already have an English Bill of Rights which was signed in 1679.
The main problem with the EHRA is, it is probably one of the most ambiguous pieces of legislation ever created. In each country around Europe they interpret it differently, but unfortunately for us our judges seem to take so called 'human rights' to the extreme. They almost seem to think that anyone who commits any crime has the right to a three course meal, a TV, selection of DVDs, use of gym facilities and off course the right to vote. I just feel that justice has been turned on its head when someone can commit so many crimes and not serve one day in prison, and has only served 4 months for killing someone. I have spoken to a number of people about this and I get the same reaction, and that is disgust and a sense of powerlessness. Many people feel that those who are in power do not care and do not listen. When we end up with people feeling like this I believe the country can go one of two ways and that is either total apathy or anger, which could then lead to civil unrest.
I have mentioned before about civil unrest and I do believe it could come to this, because I do not feel the Government are listening to the people. If the people do not feel listened to they may react and it might end up with violence on the streets. This one case highlights how far the people who make and enforce our laws are removed from the people they are supposed to serve. This European Human Rights Act has had a corrosive effect on British life. If we want to continue to live in a tolerant society I believe the Government should repeal this law and bring back common sense to our judicial system.
No comments:
Post a Comment