When Is It ‘Too Long Ago’…?

The answer seems to be “When it’s a Muslim peer and his family in the dock“:

The charges against Lord Ahmed of Rotherham and two of his brothers, Mohamed Farouq and Mohammed Tariq, date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s.

All three were due to face a trial in the summer.

That didn’t stop the prosecution of Ray Teret, did it?

Mr Farouq would not be able to follow details from “truly ages and ages and ages ago”, Sheffield Crown Court heard.

But Stuart Hall could…?

Judge Jeremy Richardson QC told the court he had reached the “unhesitating conclusion” that Mr Farouq, 68, of Worrygoose Lane, Rotherham, would not be able to instruct lawyers.

“I simply state for the purpose of underlining how long ago these offences are alleged to have occurred that Harold Wilson was the still the prime minister in his first period of office, President Lyndon Johnson was the president of the United States, and it was only in late 1968 that President Nixon was elected to office.”

And it was early 1975 when Rolf Harris was alleged to have committed one of his offences. So what?

A further hearing date is due to be set next month.

If the Attorney General doesn’t intervene, one can only conclude that the wilder conspiracy theorists on the net are right, for once – there really is an establishment policy to excuse high-level Muslims from crimes that the indigenous population go to jail for…

2 comments for “When Is It ‘Too Long Ago’…?

  1. Mark
    April 20, 2020 at 1:05 pm

    What about Bishop Bell? Allegations (just one I think) half a century after he had died

  2. April 21, 2020 at 2:41 pm

    I think the prosecution should be making the point that in the UK we have no statute of limitations. A crime is a crime whenever it was caused.

    Precedent has been set in previous cases, so surely the Judge is duty bound to exercise case law as it has been established in the past. There is no previously argued impediment against prosecution based on the passage of time.

    Or maybe all the other cases had crap lawyers.

    But if this is allowed to stand, I expect a flurry of requests of appeal for historic sex offence cases. After all, if Lord Ahmed is not fit to instruct lawyers, how could the others be fit? Obviously the previously cases were prejudiced against the defendants and unsound if their inability to recollect details and rebut the prosecution affected their defence.

Comments are closed.