Dear All
The case of Munir Hussain and his family is an interesting one; it asks the question of how far you should go to defend yourself and your family from harm.
Hussain and his family returned from their local mosque to find three armed intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.
They were tied up but Hussain managed to get free and sought the help of his brother Tokeer to defend his family.
They returned armed with a cricket bat and metal pole to fight off the armed thugs.
In doing so, they left one of their attackers with a permanent brain injury and were subsequently arrested by the Police and prosecuted.
At their trial at Reading Crown Court Munir Hussain and his brother Tokeer received lengthy jail sentences.
In sentencing them the Judge John Reddihough stated that if he spared Mr Hussain jail, that the 'rule of law' would collapse.
He said;
“If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”
In a civilised society should Hussain have left his wife and children to the judgment of a knife carrying thug?
I would say his duty was protect his family.
Munir Hussain has since been freed by the Court of Appeal; his brother has had his sentence reduced to two years in prison.
Tokeer Hussain shouldn’t be in prison either, in defending his family from harm, he done what any person would do in his situation, he fought to protect others.
Isn’t that the hallmark of a good citizen?
So, for the Hussain family, some good news, justice has been partly done, hopefully the Court of Appeal will look again at the case of Tokeer Hussain and also give him a suspended sentence.
What is disappointing is how a jury knowing of the circumstances could convict in the first place.
This phenomenon isn’t solely English, in Scotland; a man called Stephen Armstrong was faced with knife wielding thugs and fought back. He was charged and prosecuted, found guilty he received 3 years and 8 months in 2007.
That wasn’t justice either.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
The case of Munir Hussain and his family is an interesting one; it asks the question of how far you should go to defend yourself and your family from harm.
Hussain and his family returned from their local mosque to find three armed intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.
They were tied up but Hussain managed to get free and sought the help of his brother Tokeer to defend his family.
They returned armed with a cricket bat and metal pole to fight off the armed thugs.
In doing so, they left one of their attackers with a permanent brain injury and were subsequently arrested by the Police and prosecuted.
At their trial at Reading Crown Court Munir Hussain and his brother Tokeer received lengthy jail sentences.
In sentencing them the Judge John Reddihough stated that if he spared Mr Hussain jail, that the 'rule of law' would collapse.
He said;
“If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”
In a civilised society should Hussain have left his wife and children to the judgment of a knife carrying thug?
I would say his duty was protect his family.
Munir Hussain has since been freed by the Court of Appeal; his brother has had his sentence reduced to two years in prison.
Tokeer Hussain shouldn’t be in prison either, in defending his family from harm, he done what any person would do in his situation, he fought to protect others.
Isn’t that the hallmark of a good citizen?
So, for the Hussain family, some good news, justice has been partly done, hopefully the Court of Appeal will look again at the case of Tokeer Hussain and also give him a suspended sentence.
What is disappointing is how a jury knowing of the circumstances could convict in the first place.
This phenomenon isn’t solely English, in Scotland; a man called Stephen Armstrong was faced with knife wielding thugs and fought back. He was charged and prosecuted, found guilty he received 3 years and 8 months in 2007.
That wasn’t justice either.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
No comments:
Post a Comment