Prosecution closes argument in Altaf Hussain’s incitement case

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

The Crown Prosecution Service has concluded its case against the MQM leader Altaf Hussain at the Kingston Crown Court, urging the jurors to consider Hussain’s tone, tenor, and words when he allegedly urged his followers to commit acts of violence in Karachi on August 22, 2016.

In making a closing speech, the prosecutor addressed the jurors on Thursday afternoon, stating that there is a general rule that "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter," but that this was a different case as the jury would have to consider whether the defendant committed the two charges/counts alleged against him. The two counts set out before the jury, relate to Hussain’s first speech, made at 07.30am (UK time) from London to Karachi, and the second speech, made at 11.30 (UK time), which continued till PK time 05.16pm (1316 UK).

Related items​

• Expert tells UK court about Altaf Hussain's rise, violence, extrajudicial killings
• Jury takes oath in Altaf Hussain’s terror incitement trial
• MQM-P doesn't have support of Urdu-speaking communities: Altaf Hussain

The prosecutor asked the jury not to look at the cultural aspects of Pakistani politics but at the laws of England and Wales that apply to everyone in this jurisdiction.

These laws apply to everyone who comes to live here or seeks refuge here, said the prosecution adding that was happened on the morning and afternoon of 22nd August 2016 resulted directly in acts of violence. The law says you may not encourage that to advance a political cause, to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public, and that’s precisely what Altaf Hussain did, as in what was called for, what he intended, and what he achieved.

The prosecutor said the three elements of these charges are encouraging acts of terrorism, whether Altaf Hussain published a statement, and that there is no doubt that those two speeches were in fact made in a particular tone, manner, and delivery.

The prosecutor told the jury that Altaf Hussain’s statements were likely to be understood by a reasonable person hearing them as a direct/indirect encouragement to commit the act(s) of terrorism.

The prosecutor explained to the jury to consider the intention and objective of Altaf Hussain when he asked his followers to rise up against the DG Rangers and TV channels including Geo, ARY, and Samaa in inciting them as set out in count one of the charge. The prosecutor said that these words were spoken by a leader of a large, potentially successful organisation to those behind the cause of the Muhajir community.

The prosecutor then turned to the speeches Hussain made. He told the jury that during the early morning address, Altaf Hussain spoke of "revolution," "rebellion," and the focus was on the interests, ideology, and political aims of the MQM. The prosecutor told the jury that Hussain asked his followers in the morning address to "march to Rangers HQs," "get Director-General Bilal Akbar outside," "recite Kalima," and "come out, gather outside the Press Club," with references to anchorpersons, Punjabi lot, and the police.

The prosecutor said that Altaf Hussain here attempted to excuse the past behaviour of the MQM and talked about the MQM’s martyrs, urging his followers to "If you have a sense of honour, come on foot" and "I need 500,000, I require 500,000, to shove inside Rangers HQ and get Bilal Akbar." The crowd responded that they would shove.

The prosecution informed the court that Hussain said: "the TV channel that abuses MQM, gently tells the cameramen, take your camera and leave." The prosecution said that Hussain asked his followers to go to Rangers HQ and then "go to Geo and ARY and their officers". When Altaf Hussain asked his followers whether they wanted to do this or return home and do nothing, the crowd chanted that they were willing to lay down their lives for him.

The prosecution said the motivation here was to assemble in an overwhelming number and go to Rangers HQs, drag out (or kidnap) Bilal Akbar, knowing that the only way that could occur is by violence. Prosecutors said that he was very serious when he said that he wanted the crowd to get involved in the most violent fights possible.

The prosecution said that Hussain’s other invitation was directed at the media, against those who have not/will not toe his line, publish his words and message, and that they have to be put off, terminated, or rendered useless. The prosecutor said that Hussain was banned by the Lahore High Court and his "freedom of speech" was stifled. "Think about this, he is a man who wants his supporters to physically overrun the people and places that otherwise produce legitimate broadcasts and silence them," said the prosecutor.

In the second count of the charge, the prosecution said, Hussain targeted the state of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, the Sindh government, Bilal Akbar, Raheel Shareef, and worked up the crowd against the security forces. The prosecution asked the jury to see that the types of acts Hussain asked his followers to commit included shutting down TV channels for the purpose of influencing the government in the political interests of the Muhajirs, with a degree of racial, ethnic, and ideological interests as represented by the MQM.

The prosecution said that Altaf Hussain issued a command —that under English law — amounts to an act of terrorism (inciting violence).

The prosecution said that following Hussain’s command, the crowd walked straight outside, with female activists at its head, to the front gates of ARY, where "hapless" police officers were surrounded and "beyond doubt, there was serious violence".

The prosecution told the jury that a police officer was surrounded, his weapon pulled from him, his weapon brandished, and he was beaten. One man was killed, fires were set, and police vehicles were set alight, the prosecution told the jury.

The prosecutor said: "His speech was designed to influence people, incite violence, intimidate the government, and for a political cause. No amount of appeal to rights or freedoms or anything else can stand in the way of that. Because the right of others is to enjoy liberty and access to property, he sought to deprive people of that. "

Altaf Hussain denies the charges and has maintained that he didn’t commit any violence. His defence lawyer will open the case on Friday.

Prosecution closes argument in Altaf Hussain’s incitement case

Prosecution urges jurors to consider Hussain’s tone, tenor, and words when he had incited violence in Karachi on August 22, 2016

www.geo.tv

 

[TigerOfMysore]

View attachment 814643
The Crown Prosecution Service has concluded its case against the MQM leader Altaf Hussain at the Kingston Crown Court, urging the jurors to consider Hussain’s tone, tenor, and words when he allegedly urged his followers to commit acts of violence in Karachi on August 22, 2016.

In making a closing speech, the prosecutor addressed the jurors on Thursday afternoon, stating that there is a general rule that "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter," but that this was a different case as the jury would have to consider whether the defendant committed the two charges/counts alleged against him. The two counts set out before the jury, relate to Hussain’s first speech, made at 07.30am (UK time) from London to Karachi, and the second speech, made at 11.30 (UK time), which continued till PK time 05.16pm (1316 UK).

Related items​

• Expert tells UK court about Altaf Hussain's rise, violence, extrajudicial killings
• Jury takes oath in Altaf Hussain’s terror incitement trial
• MQM-P doesn't have support of Urdu-speaking communities: Altaf Hussain

The prosecutor asked the jury not to look at the cultural aspects of Pakistani politics but at the laws of England and Wales that apply to everyone in this jurisdiction.

These laws apply to everyone who comes to live here or seeks refuge here, said the prosecution adding that was happened on the morning and afternoon of 22nd August 2016 resulted directly in acts of violence. The law says you may not encourage that to advance a political cause, to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public, and that’s precisely what Altaf Hussain did, as in what was called for, what he intended, and what he achieved.

The prosecutor said the three elements of these charges are encouraging acts of terrorism, whether Altaf Hussain published a statement, and that there is no doubt that those two speeches were in fact made in a particular tone, manner, and delivery.

The prosecutor told the jury that Altaf Hussain’s statements were likely to be understood by a reasonable person hearing them as a direct/indirect encouragement to commit the act(s) of terrorism.

The prosecutor explained to the jury to consider the intention and objective of Altaf Hussain when he asked his followers to rise up against the DG Rangers and TV channels including Geo, ARY, and Samaa in inciting them as set out in count one of the charge. The prosecutor said that these words were spoken by a leader of a large, potentially successful organisation to those behind the cause of the Muhajir community.

The prosecutor then turned to the speeches Hussain made. He told the jury that during the early morning address, Altaf Hussain spoke of "revolution," "rebellion," and the focus was on the interests, ideology, and political aims of the MQM. The prosecutor told the jury that Hussain asked his followers in the morning address to "march to Rangers HQs," "get Director-General Bilal Akbar outside," "recite Kalima," and "come out, gather outside the Press Club," with references to anchorpersons, Punjabi lot, and the police.

The prosecutor said that Altaf Hussain here attempted to excuse the past behaviour of the MQM and talked about the MQM’s martyrs, urging his followers to "If you have a sense of honour, come on foot" and "I need 500,000, I require 500,000, to shove inside Rangers HQ and get Bilal Akbar." The crowd responded that they would shove.

The prosecution informed the court that Hussain said: "the TV channel that abuses MQM, gently tells the cameramen, take your camera and leave." The prosecution said that Hussain asked his followers to go to Rangers HQ and then "go to Geo and ARY and their officers". When Altaf Hussain asked his followers whether they wanted to do this or return home and do nothing, the crowd chanted that they were willing to lay down their lives for him.

The prosecution said the motivation here was to assemble in an overwhelming number and go to Rangers HQs, drag out (or kidnap) Bilal Akbar, knowing that the only way that could occur is by violence. Prosecutors said that he was very serious when he said that he wanted the crowd to get involved in the most violent fights possible.

The prosecution said that Hussain’s other invitation was directed at the media, against those who have not/will not toe his line, publish his words and message, and that they have to be put off, terminated, or rendered useless. The prosecutor said that Hussain was banned by the Lahore High Court and his "freedom of speech" was stifled. "Think about this, he is a man who wants his supporters to physically overrun the people and places that otherwise produce legitimate broadcasts and silence them," said the prosecutor.

In the second count of the charge, the prosecution said, Hussain targeted the state of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, the Sindh government, Bilal Akbar, Raheel Shareef, and worked up the crowd against the security forces. The prosecution asked the jury to see that the types of acts Hussain asked his followers to commit included shutting down TV channels for the purpose of influencing the government in the political interests of the Muhajirs, with a degree of racial, ethnic, and ideological interests as represented by the MQM.

The prosecution said that Altaf Hussain issued a command —that under English law — amounts to an act of terrorism (inciting violence).

The prosecution said that following Hussain’s command, the crowd walked straight outside, with female activists at its head, to the front gates of ARY, where "hapless" police officers were surrounded and "beyond doubt, there was serious violence".

The prosecution told the jury that a police officer was surrounded, his weapon pulled from him, his weapon brandished, and he was beaten. One man was killed, fires were set, and police vehicles were set alight, the prosecution told the jury.

The prosecutor said: "His speech was designed to influence people, incite violence, intimidate the government, and for a political cause. No amount of appeal to rights or freedoms or anything else can stand in the way of that. Because the right of others is to enjoy liberty and access to property, he sought to deprive people of that. "

Altaf Hussain denies the charges and has maintained that he didn’t commit any violence. His defence lawyer will open the case on Friday.

Prosecution closes argument in Altaf Hussain’s incitement case

Prosecution urges jurors to consider Hussain’s tone, tenor, and words when he had incited violence in Karachi on August 22, 2016

www.geo.tv

Half *** effort. Basic "Karvaee" to give him a pass. I hope I am wrong but I dont see the British establishment locking up their and their Quad partners asset. If Britian gives him a free pass, some citizens should sue the British government for pain and injury, and get restitution from British Pakistani assets. Like their properties and bank accounts etc., in Pakistan.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

MI5/MI6 will save their asset in the end.

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

MI5/MI6 will save their asset in the end.

Maybe or maybe not, I have served as a JURY on many occasions and was told to speak out on any foreign influences including the State.

Jury retires to deliberate verdict in Altaf Hussain UK trial​

LONDON: Arguments in the “encouraging terrorism” case being heard at the Kingston-upon-Thames crown court over the past two weeks concluded on Friday, with the jury retiring to deliberate whether MQM supremo Altaf Hussain should be convicted or acquitted of a terror charge.
The indictment has been split into two separate counts, both relating to the offence of “encouraging terrorism”, contrary to section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2006. The counts relate to two different speeches made by Mr Hussain on Aug 22, 2016, which form the basis of the case.
A verdict is expected in the coming week. Instructions given to jurors by Mrs Justice May set out that the verdicts in each count may be the same but do not have to be.
Although it was initially expected that Mr Hussain would take the stand, ultimately his counsel shared with the court that he decided against it.

Mrs Justice May said that Mr Hussain’s decision was his right and that the jury could conclude that he did not give evidence at trial to undermine and contradict his speeches.
“You can conclude that Mr Hussain did not have an answer to the prosecution’s case, but you cannot convict him on silence, as the prosecution has to prove guilt in order for you to come to that conclusion,” she said.

Judge splits indictment into two counts on terror charge; MQM leader decides not to take the stand

The prosecution used the opportunity to demonstrate that Mr Hussain did not “answer, apologise, explain” his innocence or give answers to obvious questions. “There is a reason for that: he [Mr Hussain] doesn’t have an answer or at least one that he could give and sit down, but one he would have to justify.”
The defence counsel, however, said Mr Hussain did not have more to add. “Would it help if he got into the dock six years later and talked about things burning on a video? Don’t feel he’s hiding anything — really what more is there to say about this?”
The defence counsel said Mr Hussain’s apology on Twitter after the speeches demonstrated his regret about what happened. He said people apologised for all sorts of reasons, but it should not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing.
Jurors asked to consider ‘yardstick’
According to directions given to the jury by Mrs Justice May, to convict Mr Hussain the jury has to be satisfied that he published a speech, that his statements were likely to be understood by a reasonable person hearing them of encouraging terrorism and that Mr Hussain either intended or was reckless as to whether members of the public would be encouraged to commit acts of violence after hearing those broadcast speeches.
The judge said the prosecution does not have to prove that acts of terrorism occurred, though that is their submission. The meaning of intention and reckless, the jurors heard, was for them to determine. Mr Hussain was reckless, the judge said, if he was aware of a risk of violence but unreasonably decided to take it anyway.
When considering the act of terrorism, the judge said the jury must consider the type of act, its design and purpose. To convict, the jury must be persuaded that the act was done to further a religious, political, ideological or racial cause, regardless of whether the cause was justified.
In its final statement to jurors, the prosecution said the word ‘terrorism’ though in layman’s terms may be up for a debate around morality but for this court must be viewed as set out by English law against the yardstick determined by the parliament.
The prosecution stressed that what Mr Hussain asked and commanded of his followers were acts of terrorism, designed to influence the government, and that they were done for a political cause.
The prosecution said Mr Hussain employed various kinds of rhetoric from a position of political power and leadership, which relied on the devotion of his supporters.
It said Mr Hussain used this vantage point to encourage violence and that the “whole tone, content and method used was designed to get the crowd to do something”.
It argued that this objective was to deploy them in an overwhelming force to “trash and smash” TV stations and that he contemplated a level of death and injury. “He knows he has the devotion and loyalty of his followers. [It is like he is] pulling them on a piece of elastic, throwing them away and they come bounding back.”
The defence rested its case on a different yardstick by which the jury should evaluate the evidence. The defence lawyer stressed the “differences between realities in England and Wales and Pakistan” when it comes to rights and privileges.
“The events in large part…all take place many many miles away in a different jurisdiction, language, culture, with a very different political context. The way state actors, government, police, other state bodies [act is] completely different to what we experience here. [There is a] different concept of rights, of how humans are treated particularly by those state actors,” the defence argued.
The defence contended that it was wrong to measure the evidence against the yardstick of English law, as the events took place in Pakistan where a “different cultural yardstick” should be applied.
“You are being required to put yourself in the shoes of not the reasonable person with the experience of living in southwest London, with all the freedoms and rights we have enjoyed. You have to put yourself in the place of a reasonable person in Karachi, to people in a tent listening to the speeches,” the defence argued. “You can’t have that experience, of being in that tent, but that’s the task required of you.”
The argument from the defence continued on this point, with the lawyer saying jurors would have to get “into Altaf’s head” and how he understood what was happening.
In conclusion, the defence submitted that Mr Hussain intended no serious violence to come from his speeches and that he intended to be a figurehead for those he represents. The lawyer quoted Dr Nichola Khan and described Mr Hussain as a “progressive, liberal, someone who stands up for women’s rights, someone against Taliban and Al Qaeda and someone who fights by the yardstick of England for rights that we all enjoy”.

Jury retires to deliberate verdict in Altaf Hussain UK trial

Judge splits indictment into two counts on terror charge; MQM leader decides not to take the stand.

www.dawn.com

 

[TigerOfMysore]

As I said in Post

• #2

They were never going to find this fellow guilty. Terrorism in Pakistan committed by this fellow and his party members is clear as day - yet the audacity on the Western judicial system. This judgement should clear away any doubt about the West, and especially the UK.

Jury finds Altaf Hussain not guilty of encouraging terrorism in Karachi

Majority of jury find Altaf Hussain not to be in violation of UK’s anti-Terrorism laws on August 22, 2016 speech

www.thenews.com.pk