Wakalat Online LLP’s Post

In a recent judgment, the Lahore High Court made a significant ruling regarding the jurisdiction of cases involving violent acts near court premises. The case, titled Aqeel alias Kaka, etc. vs The State, presented a complex legal question concerning whether an incident involving gunfire near a court should be tried under anti-terrorism laws or in an ordinary court of law. The court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, particularly focusing on the definition of "terrorism" and the criteria for determining jurisdiction under the Act. It emphasized the importance of mens rea, or criminal intent, in categorizing an act as terrorism, highlighting that mere magnitude or shocking nature of the crime does not necessarily constitute terrorism. Crucially, the court observed that the incident in question, while tragic and resulting in loss of life, stemmed from personal vendetta rather than a calculated act of terrorism. It noted that the gunfire occurred outside the court premises and was not specifically targeted at the court itself. Therefore, it concluded that the case did not fall within the ambit of anti-terrorism laws and should be tried in an ordinary court. This judgment underscores the principle of legal interpretation in special laws and the need to narrowly construe provisions to preserve fundamental rights and ensure justice. It provides clarity on the scope of anti-terrorism legislation, affirming that acts driven by personal motives should not be indiscriminately labeled as terrorism. The Lahore High Court's ruling sets an important precedent, reaffirming the rule of law and ensuring that legal proceedings align with the intent and spirit of legislative enactments. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional principles and safeguarding individual liberties. #Legal #Judiciary #LahoreHighCourt #AntiTerrorismAct #RuleOfLaw #Justice #LandmarkJudgment

📢 Transfer of Cases to Anti-Terrorism Courts 📢 In a recent ruling (2024 PCrLJ 658), the court clarified the jurisdictional aspect of cases involving firing within court premises. Here's a breakdown of the key points: 1️⃣ **Exclusive Jurisdiction**: Any offense of firing within a court premises falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court as per Entry-4 of the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. 2️⃣ **Transfer of Cases**: Courts of ordinary jurisdiction have the authority to transfer such cases to the Anti-Terrorism Court. This transfer can occur if the scheduled offense of the Anti-Terrorism Act is attracted from the facts of the case. 3️⃣ **Legal Framework**: The process of transferring cases is governed by provisions such as Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. 4️⃣ **Course of Action**: Depending on the stage of the trial, different procedures may apply. If a question of jurisdiction arises during the trial, the court may send the case directly to the Anti-Terrorism Court. However, if the case is pending trial, it should be transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court upon the inclusion of the offense in the Third Schedule of the Act. 5️⃣ **Judicial Discretion**: The Anti-Terrorism Court retains the power to decide on its jurisdiction and can transfer the case back to the Court having jurisdiction if deemed necessary. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the legal framework when dealing with cases involving offenses within court premises. It ensures the proper administration of justice and upholds the rule of law. #LegalUpdate #AntiTerrorismAct #Jurisdiction #CourtProceedings #RuleOfLaw

The Albanese Government does everything it can to punish whistle blowers on war crimes of Australian soldiers. We should be upholding the highest standards of defence activity in the world. The world requires the setting of a high bar in this regard. The low bar is the Israeli Defence Force genocide of Palestinians. I despair, the political systems of the world tend to find themselves feeding off the bottom of moral incompetence, wondering why they can't get a handle on the most trivial problems. A little moral competence in some quarters would elevate a nation to a high standing indeed. https://lnkd.in/g2UsYXz8

I am not affiliated with the Muslim Legal Fund of America in anyway, but I would like to share some exciting news about some of their recent work. Last week, the MLFA submit a terrorism sentencing reform proposal to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in efforts to reduce sentencing enhancement within federal national security prosecutions. Many of these prosecutions have a disproportionate number of Muslim defendants, whose cases are subject to "terrorism enhancement" laws, and are applied in a discriminatory ways depending on the defendant's race and religious status. These enhancements pressure Muslim defendants to accept plea deals quickly, regardless of their innocence or guilt, and continue to inflate the narrative of Muslim defendants being violent and un-American, when many of them are non-violent, first time offenders. This reform proposal is very important and necessary for our legal system. I am currently working on a project with Solitary Watch that investigates the use of solitary confinement as a tool of judicial coercion in pre-trial detention and investigation processes into cases of Muslim defendants being charged with federal terrorism, which furthers the growing research into anti-terrorism prosecutions within the U.S. judicial system. I hope to share this project with you all soon. For those who are interested in learning more about this reform proposal, check it out their website here. https://lnkd.in/eXFVanhC

In the context of firing within court premises, whether stemming from personal vendetta or terrorism, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 mandates that such cases must be tried exclusively by Anti-Terrorism Courts. Even if the act doesn't constitute terrorism per se, it falls under the Act's third schedule, necessitating trial in the Anti-Terrorism Court. Ordinary courts can transfer such cases to Anti-Terrorism Courts if they find the Act's scheduled offense applicable. This transfer is in line with legal provisions allowing magistrates to take cognizance only of offenses within their jurisdiction. When determining jurisdiction, courts may return the case to prosecution if lacking jurisdiction. However, once a case is pending trial, it cannot be returned, necessitating direct transfer to the Anti-Terrorism Court. This respects the law's mandate, compelling all courts to send such cases to Anti-Terrorism Courts. Cases may involve terrorism offenses under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act or offenses included in the Act's third schedule. While assessing Section 6's applicability requires scrutiny, cases falling under the third schedule can be directly sent to Anti-Terrorism Courts. If an offense is later included in the Act's schedule while pending trial, it must be immediately transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court. Transfer protocols vary based on the court where the case is pending. Anti-Terrorism Courts, akin to Sessions Courts, can take cognizance and call records from other courts where Anti-Terrorism Act offenses apply. These courts have jurisdictional authority and can transfer cases back if necessary. Overall, the law empowers courts to ensure cases are tried in the appropriate jurisdiction. If a magistrate lacks jurisdiction or believes the case should be tried by a Sessions Court, they can transfer it accordingly. This ensures adherence to legal procedures and expedites the trial process. #wakalatonline

Ukraine has been using criminal groups to help defend against Russia's invasion. I write about this phenomenon in the Journal of Illicit Economies and Development (https://lnkd.in/eu6HF_Xy). A few key points: 1) Ukrainian criminal actors have gathered intelligence and provided manpower for the country's military and paramilitary forces. For example, some reportedly shared intelligence with the Security Service of Ukraine that assisted in the apprehension of Russians mobilized in Ukraine for sabotage missions at the war's outset. 2) Using criminal actors for national defense is not uncommon for states during wartime. The Kremlin has leveraged its long-standing ties with criminal syndicates to support its own wartime operations. The United States too worked with the Italian-American mafia during World War II to protect New York City ports from sabotage and gather intelligence for the 1943 invasion of Sicily. 3) While it may be necassary for national defense, Ukrainian authorities should remain cognizant that working with criminal groups could contribute to undermining citizen trust in the state. Surveys show that the Ukrainian population is skeptical of the will and capacity of the state to bring perpetrators of crime to justice. Wartime arrangements with criminal actors, which include releasing some from prison, could compound these concerns. Thank you to Dr. Gary Espinas, Dr. Cullen Nutt, and many others for valuable input! Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime #JIED #Ukraine #War #OrganizedCrime #Justice

Before we leave the topic of Wake Island (please see my two previous installments), the following is just offered for what it's worth. I have a very long memory about rumors after 9/11 about Islamic terrorist POW's being held on Wake Island. This is what Meta AI said. I was a Supervisor with U.S. Customs in Honolulu at the time and Open Source Intelligence was one of my collateral duties. ☆ Meta AI To address your query, I've searched through various reliable sources, including: 1. News archives (2001-2002): The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and AP News. 2. Official documents: US Department of Defense, US Congress, and Congressional Research Service reports. 3. Human rights organizations: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Findings: There were reports and speculation in 2001-2002 about the potential use of Wake Island as a detention facility for terrorist suspects. However, no credible evidence confirms that Islamic terrorist prisoners of war were held on Wake Island. Key points: 1. In December 2001, CNN reported rumors about Wake Island potentially being used as a detention site, but this was never confirmed. 2. A January 2002 AP News article mentioned Wake Island as a possible location for detainee transfers, citing unnamed US officials. However, this claim was later disputed. 3. The US Department of Defense consistently denied using Wake Island as a detention facility. 4. Human rights organizations and investigative journalists found no evidence to support claims of secret detention on Wake Island. Chance of prisoners still being held: Extremely unlikely. The US government has consistently stated that Wake Island is not used for detention purposes. Regular inspections and monitoring by various organizations would have revealed any such activities. Post-2002 developments: 1. The US established Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba as the primary facility for holding terrorist suspects. 2. The 2004 CIA Inspector General Report and the 2005 Senate Armed Services Committee Report on detainee treatment confirmed no secret detention facilities on Wake Island. Sources: 1. CNN (Dec 2001): "U.S. considering Wake Island for detainees" 2. AP News (Jan 2002): "U.S. may use Wake Island for terror detainees" 3. US Department of Defense (2002): "News Briefing" 4. Amnesty International (2002): "USA: Secret Detentions" 5. Human Rights Watch (2004): "Ghost Detainees" Please note that while Wake Island's remote location makes it theoretically suitable for secretive activities, there's no credible evidence supporting claims of secret detention. ☆ I guess the question is whether you believe everything the U.S. Government tells you, especially in issues as sensitive as this. There is another location I suspect other than Guantanamo, but it's not directly related to Wake Island, and if prisoners are still there, let's just not go that route.

📢UN experts today expressed grave concern about the confirmation of the death sentences against seven individuals by Egypt’s highest court on 24 January 2024, in the so-called "Helwan Brigade” counter-terrorism case. Their executions would constitute arbitrary killings in violation of the right to life as a result of unfair trials and other human rights violations, they said. “Capital punishment may only be carried out after a legal process that guarantees all of the safeguards required by international human rights law,” the experts said. The experts said these cases allegedly involved grave violations of international law, including enforced disappearances and incommunicado detention, torture and forced confessions, denial of access to lawyers and family visits, protracted pre-trial detention, solitary confinement, inhuman detention conditions, and mass trials before special terrorism courts which did not meet fair trial standards. “Egypt has also failed to independently and effectively investigate and remedy these alleged violations as required by international and Egyptian law,” they said. The death sentences further violate international law because they are based on convictions for vague and overly broad terrorist offences, including when these may not meet the threshold of “most serious” crimes. There is also a real risk that executions in practice may constitute prohibited torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. “We urge Egypt to halt these executions, to independently investigate the alleged human rights violations and review the judicial proceedings in light of Egypt’s international obligations,” the experts said. UN experts have previously called on Egypt to suspend executions following repeated allegations of unfair trials in terrorism cases. “We are profoundly concerned that these cases are not isolated but seem to be part of a systematic misuse of counter-terrorism and national security laws, including to impose the death penalty, which undermines human rights and the rule of law,” the experts said. The experts also urged Egypt to consider abolishing the death penalty, in light of the pro-abolitionist spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2023. Note: The seven individuals are Magdy Muhammed Ibrahim Ibrahim, Mahmoud Attia Ahmed Abdulghany, Abdulwahab Mostafa Muhammed Mostafa, Musab Abdulhamid Khalifa, Abdullah Nader Al-Sharqawy, Abdulrahman Issa Abdulkhaliq, and Mahmoud Al-Sayed Amin. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/ekwGRWdu

Entrapment tactics by agent provocateurs to help push political agendas is becoming more prevalent. We witnessed similar tactics in New Zealand by an inciting agent we caught. 🕵️♂️🛡️ same lies. Firearms and terrorism. There must be a severe shortage of real criminals in society if govt agencies sink to this level of incompetency corruption and abuses of power to make a case against the most vulnerable or the law abiding citizen. 🤥🙊🙉🙈 they don’t like getting caught. https://lnkd.in/g8XCTJvr

In the context of firing within court premises, whether stemming from personal vendetta or terrorism, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 mandates that such cases must be tried exclusively by Anti-Terrorism Courts. Even if the act doesn't constitute terrorism per se, it falls under the Act's third schedule, necessitating trial in the Anti-Terrorism Court. Ordinary courts can transfer such cases to Anti-Terrorism Courts if they find the Act's scheduled offense applicable. This transfer is in line with legal provisions allowing magistrates to take cognizance only of offenses within their jurisdiction. When determining jurisdiction, courts may return the case to prosecution if lacking jurisdiction. However, once a case is pending trial, it cannot be returned, necessitating direct transfer to the Anti-Terrorism Court. This respects the law's mandate, compelling all courts to send such cases to Anti-Terrorism Courts. Cases may involve terrorism offenses under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act or offenses included in the Act's third schedule. While assessing Section 6's applicability requires scrutiny, cases falling under the third schedule can be directly sent to Anti-Terrorism Courts. If an offense is later included in the Act's schedule while pending trial, it must be immediately transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court. Transfer protocols vary based on the court where the case is pending. Anti-Terrorism Courts, akin to Sessions Courts, can take cognizance and call records from other courts where Anti-Terrorism Act offenses apply. These courts have jurisdictional authority and can transfer cases back if necessary. Overall, the law empowers courts to ensure cases are tried in the appropriate jurisdiction. If a magistrate lacks jurisdiction or believes the case should be tried by a Sessions Court, they can transfer it accordingly. This ensures adherence to legal procedures and expedites the trial process. #wakalatonline