Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
Tukhachevskii:

I have a question, for David too, that relates to what Slap wrote about trying these killers. It has been years since the Ft. Hood killer and the thing that killed the women and children in the night in Afghanistan committed their crimes, crimes of which there is no doubt that they are guilty. Yet, it has been years and their trails are nowhere in sight. Will the British take as long to try and convict the obviously guilty as we do?
Carl,

No would be a simple answer. Nearly all contemporary terrorism-related trials occur in England, so I've not looked at cases in Northern Ireland (which has different laws) or Scotland.

Criminal trials here do not recognise 'the obviously guilty'.

Once a suspect is charged they must appear before a Crown Court within sixty days, for plea and direction. Very few terrorism suspects get bail, being in custody is supposed to accelerate the state's trial preparation; secondly few plead guilty until trial. There is a procedure now to signal a guilty plea before trial and get a lesser sentence.

Here are four examples: Moinul Abedin, B'ham's first AQ plotter, arrested 17th November 2000, trial February 2002; 21st July 2005 London bombers, not guilty trial ended with convictions 9th July 2007; B'ham's Operation Gamble, arrests 31st January 2007, two pleaded not guilty and trial February 2008 (one acquitted, one convicted) and Ahmed Faraz, B'ham bookshop owner, first arrested January 2007, not charged, arrested in 2010 charged and trial October 2011.

There was one terror plot in London which IIRC had three trials, after the juries at two trials were unconvinced and that took time to conclude. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_tr..._aircraft_plot

One London trial took a year in court and the jury were out for a month.

I cannot recall a terrorism related case not reaching trial within two years.