UPDATE – the Manchester Evening News is saying that this case is listed ‘for mention’. This is an administrative hearing in front of a judge to rule on things like evidence etc. This hearing is normally lawyers and the judge only and the defendant often doesn’t appear. A case like this is going to have a lot of witnesses, written and video evidence etc which the judge may need to rule on for reasons of admissibility etc. There may also be in this sort of case (as with spy cases) issues of national security involved or where information has been obtained by the Security Services where the trial court may need to sit ‘in camera’. If this is the case then the judge may need to make rulings on these matters.
Addendum: For the benefit of those coming to this site from Twitter who are calling ‘censorship’ over the lack of coverage. Normally pre-trial legal argument is not reported for very good and sound reasons. Also, in some trials, especially those which are complex or if there is disputes over what evidence is allowed to be heard it is really not unusual for a jury to be sworn in, there then to be either a day or more of legal argument between counsel for prosecution and the counsel for the defence and the Judge with the trial proper starting later with the prosecution opening statement. By all means call ‘censorship’ when the trial proper starts but to do this before this point is mistaken. Also reporting restrictions may be in place where there are multiple defendants and the case is broken down into separate trials for one or more of the defendants.
The two Muslims who were filmed taking part in the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby are due to appear at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) in London on the 18th November 2013.
As with all cases which have been committed to Crown Court by the lower Magistrates Court there have been the usual reporting restrictions in place, so the date of the trial may not have been as prominent in the media as some in the counterjihad movement, or much of the general public, would have liked. However the law is the law and it applies just as much in this case as it would if anybody else had been arrested and committed for trial at a Crown Court.
I normally try not to comment too much on cases that are sub-judice because there is the danger of an offender walking free because of published comment and other material that would prejudice a fair trial. In this case however there is such a wealth of evidence regarding these offenders guilt that I’ll risk a comment.
What is noticeable about this case is that although they have pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing at the Central Criminal Court to establish pleas, they stand little chance of being found not guilty by a jury.
My guess is that Michael Adebolajo, 28, from Romford, east London, and Michael Adebowale, 22, from Greenwich, south-east London, have denied the charges not because they believe they will be found not guilty, but in order to use the extended court appearances to promote Jihad or make other Islamist political speeches. I don’t buy the idea that the progress of this case has been ‘hushed up’ by the authorities and the media because nearly all cases that are committed to Crown Court are subject to the sort of wide ranging reporting restrictions that we see here.
However, that said, it is plain to see that based on the evidence that has been previously published, only a jury made up of morons or jihadists could possibly find these defendants ‘not guilty’. Yes they have to have their day in court, but these bastards must not be pandered to by referring to them by the ‘Jihad’ names or stuff like that.
Assuming that these beasts are convicted the main question then will be what will be the sentence. If these two get a sentence of life with no minimum tariff or they are given the softer option of a mental health hospital order, then sadly I predict a negative reaction. To kill a British solider in a London street whilst quoting from the Qu’ran is an act of war and should be treated as such. A reasonable sentence in my view (sadly Britain doesn’t have a death penalty thanks to the liberal Left) would be a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 30 years or a whole life sentence (see CPS guidelines on this).
I don’t want to see trouble but if these offenders end up being given anything less than 30 years (which is the starting point for a murder carried out for political or religious aims), or if they are despatched into the secure mental health system, then I predict a huge and possibly violent reaction from the many people who have been utterly disgusted not only by the murder of Drummer Rigby, but the craven response to it by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Violent reactions to Islam and Jihad are not the answer, as I so often say on here, but violence will ensue if these murderers are treated with kid gloves, or if during the case it emerges that pandering to the bearded savages is taking priority over justice.
If this case goes bad my advice to those who are angry about it would be, don’t get mad, get even, don’t riot, get out and vote, don’t burn down mosques but instead peacefully campaign against Islam, don’t stay silent but instead speak up. In the long run these sort of actions will have a better result than violence. The promoters of the ideology of Islam fear widespread non-Muslim knowledge about Islam and its moral deviancy much more than they fear other things, because they know that people who are clued up about Islam will not buy the bullshit about Islam being a ‘religion of peace’. Knowledge is your ammunition and your voice is your weapon, use them to the best effect. Silence and fear of the authorities on this issue only emboldens the jihadists.
The fact that these bastards are being tried in open court at all is a testament not only to how much more civilised Britain is compared with those places run by Islam, but also how deep down Britain still follows the Biblical commandment to set up courts and dispense justice fairly.