I both read and appreciated Joshua’s Telegraph column -and indeed his reference to it. After all this often happens with his Law Society Gazette contributions.
For my (naive) peace of mind I dipped into some of the Telegraph’s readers’ VERY disturbing comments- until I stopped, almost wishing that I had refrained from doing so. Being ill informed is, of course, scarcely just the province of those with right wards leaning instincts, but “two-tier” is the most charitable interpretation I could place on some of those intemperate and-very arguably- racist stances.
The unavoidable fact is that any Police Service-however anxious to do the right thing- will for sure be “damned if they do, and damned if they don’t”.
There ARE incontrovertible and on any right minded appraisal neutral FACTS as to nationality where, as a general rule, it would be wise to release that information earlier than had occurred in Radakubana’s case but then hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am in no way prepared -deplorably shooting from the hip-to condemn a “white heat” decision and especially not in order to ramp up my own or the media’s perception of the public’s prejudices. However, would it not have inflamed rather than have been wise to have disclosed that dangerous young man’s status HAD he been an asylum seeker? Or illegally in this country? I think NOT. And so back to:”Damned if they do…..”
As to the proposition that as an inflexible rule any such provisional or illicit status having to be disclosed? So prejudicing the integrity of any future trial? Come on!
After the Blair era introduction of bad character evidence in legislation, those always were -and remain- complex and nuanced “case by case” exercises. I often when in practice would have prosecutors react indignantly when I sought to introduce bad character evidence for complainants and prosecution witnesses, on the basis of clear equality of arms principles (“What’s sauce for the goose….”)
AND YET :to disclose in any blanket sense rather than on a case by case basis can surely NEVER be the way for the police service to conduct itself, however (supposedly) much of a muchness any two cases might SEEM.
It troubles me greatly that almost everywhere one looks there is this hankering after “check list” approaches to issues however multifarious different cases under review may be. I fear also that that is the thinking in tandem with the notion that we can cope with a “light dusting” of training for all professional sectors of the CJS. Just think- seems to be the facile mantra- how much MONEY that would save.
Joshua has told me that he will post updates when he considers them relevant but although he covered the allegations against Karim Khan prosecutor at the ICC extensively he has so far failed to cover the troubling reports in Le Monde about the pressures on the court not to sanction Benjamin Netanyahu and in particular the allegations by Lieutenant Cayley .
It may be that he hasn't seen the allegations in Le Monde but in the interest of balance and informing the readership I am sharing them here
"The US imposed sanctions on four judges and the chief prosecutor, the British national Karim Khan, while threats, intrigue, and pressure from Washington mounted on state parties. The objective: to annul and prevent any arrest warrants against Israelis, including those targeting Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, issued on November 21, 2024, and to close the ongoing investigation into crimes committed on Palestinian territory.
"It was the worst few months of my life," British lawyer Andrew Cayley told Le Monde. The sexagenarian had served at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and in the Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers judging Khmer Rouge leaders. Now, he is in charge of overseeing case ICC-01/18 alongside Brenda Hollis, an American former US Air Force member. The case covers crimes committed by Israelis in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as well as those perpetrated by Hamas, including hostage-taking, on October 7, 2023, in southern Israel. It is the most sensitive case before the ICC.
In December 2024, five months after an initial warning from Dutch intelligence, Lieutenant Cayley a former military prosecutor, received a direct threat: "I was directly threatened, and I was told that I was an enemy of the state of Israel and I needed to watch my back."
But, since you ask, I had not seen the piece published by Le Monde on 4 August. I have now read it.
Some of it is clearly wrong. The passage you quote says Cayley and Hollis are in charge of a case at the ICC. Hollis left the court a year ago and Cayley left a few months later.
Some of the piece is based on the WSJ article which I reported at length. And the rest of it seems to have been lifted from a long article published by Middle East Eye on 1 August.
As Khan is a member of the English bar, my readers will naturally be interested in the outcome of investigations into allegations against him. They will also want to know whether the court's arrest warrants are enforced and where all this leaves the ICC. But unless I can add to the story — by publishing an interview, for example — I shall wait until there is something of substance to report before writing about this again.
I am disappointed that as as a subscriber to your blog I have to pay again to read your latest piece as it appears in another news (soi disant) outlet. John
Sorry about that. I did say I would not be writing every day during the holiday months. But the Telegraph then commissioned a piece and of course they’re entitled to paywall it if they wish. I thought I should alert my readers in case they wanted to read it there.
I both read and appreciated Joshua’s Telegraph column -and indeed his reference to it. After all this often happens with his Law Society Gazette contributions.
For my (naive) peace of mind I dipped into some of the Telegraph’s readers’ VERY disturbing comments- until I stopped, almost wishing that I had refrained from doing so. Being ill informed is, of course, scarcely just the province of those with right wards leaning instincts, but “two-tier” is the most charitable interpretation I could place on some of those intemperate and-very arguably- racist stances.
The unavoidable fact is that any Police Service-however anxious to do the right thing- will for sure be “damned if they do, and damned if they don’t”.
There ARE incontrovertible and on any right minded appraisal neutral FACTS as to nationality where, as a general rule, it would be wise to release that information earlier than had occurred in Radakubana’s case but then hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am in no way prepared -deplorably shooting from the hip-to condemn a “white heat” decision and especially not in order to ramp up my own or the media’s perception of the public’s prejudices. However, would it not have inflamed rather than have been wise to have disclosed that dangerous young man’s status HAD he been an asylum seeker? Or illegally in this country? I think NOT. And so back to:”Damned if they do…..”
As to the proposition that as an inflexible rule any such provisional or illicit status having to be disclosed? So prejudicing the integrity of any future trial? Come on!
After the Blair era introduction of bad character evidence in legislation, those always were -and remain- complex and nuanced “case by case” exercises. I often when in practice would have prosecutors react indignantly when I sought to introduce bad character evidence for complainants and prosecution witnesses, on the basis of clear equality of arms principles (“What’s sauce for the goose….”)
AND YET :to disclose in any blanket sense rather than on a case by case basis can surely NEVER be the way for the police service to conduct itself, however (supposedly) much of a muchness any two cases might SEEM.
It troubles me greatly that almost everywhere one looks there is this hankering after “check list” approaches to issues however multifarious different cases under review may be. I fear also that that is the thinking in tandem with the notion that we can cope with a “light dusting” of training for all professional sectors of the CJS. Just think- seems to be the facile mantra- how much MONEY that would save.
I think NOT.
There’s a much higher standard of comments here, I’m pleased to say.
Joshua has told me that he will post updates when he considers them relevant but although he covered the allegations against Karim Khan prosecutor at the ICC extensively he has so far failed to cover the troubling reports in Le Monde about the pressures on the court not to sanction Benjamin Netanyahu and in particular the allegations by Lieutenant Cayley .
It may be that he hasn't seen the allegations in Le Monde but in the interest of balance and informing the readership I am sharing them here
https://archive.is/hUcnVv
"The US imposed sanctions on four judges and the chief prosecutor, the British national Karim Khan, while threats, intrigue, and pressure from Washington mounted on state parties. The objective: to annul and prevent any arrest warrants against Israelis, including those targeting Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, issued on November 21, 2024, and to close the ongoing investigation into crimes committed on Palestinian territory.
"It was the worst few months of my life," British lawyer Andrew Cayley told Le Monde. The sexagenarian had served at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and in the Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers judging Khmer Rouge leaders. Now, he is in charge of overseeing case ICC-01/18 alongside Brenda Hollis, an American former US Air Force member. The case covers crimes committed by Israelis in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as well as those perpetrated by Hamas, including hostage-taking, on October 7, 2023, in southern Israel. It is the most sensitive case before the ICC.
In December 2024, five months after an initial warning from Dutch intelligence, Lieutenant Cayley a former military prosecutor, received a direct threat: "I was directly threatened, and I was told that I was an enemy of the state of Israel and I needed to watch my back."
My piece on Karim Khan and the ICC on 12 May — https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/icc-prosecutor-denies-rape — remains closed to comments for good reason. Attempting to bypass this by commenting on an unrelated post is unacceptable.
But, since you ask, I had not seen the piece published by Le Monde on 4 August. I have now read it.
Some of it is clearly wrong. The passage you quote says Cayley and Hollis are in charge of a case at the ICC. Hollis left the court a year ago and Cayley left a few months later.
Some of the piece is based on the WSJ article which I reported at length. And the rest of it seems to have been lifted from a long article published by Middle East Eye on 1 August.
As Khan is a member of the English bar, my readers will naturally be interested in the outcome of investigations into allegations against him. They will also want to know whether the court's arrest warrants are enforced and where all this leaves the ICC. But unless I can add to the story — by publishing an interview, for example — I shall wait until there is something of substance to report before writing about this again.
This correspondence is now closed.
I am disappointed that as as a subscriber to your blog I have to pay again to read your latest piece as it appears in another news (soi disant) outlet. John
Sorry about that. I did say I would not be writing every day during the holiday months. But the Telegraph then commissioned a piece and of course they’re entitled to paywall it if they wish. I thought I should alert my readers in case they wanted to read it there.