The UK Government Reply to the Twenty-Third Report from the Joint Committe on Human Rights Session 2008-09 HL PAPER 152, HC 230

By | TORTURE
Human-Rights-Session-2008-09-HL-PAPER-152HC-230

The UK Government Reply to the Twenty-Third Report from the Joint Committe on Human Rights Session 2008-09 HL PAPER 152, HC 230

First Published (LinkedIn) on 28th December 2017
Human-Rights-Session-2008-09-HL-PAPER-152-HC-230-200x200

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
922

Enter more text here

“THE POLICE BEAT ME UP”

I am in the process of writing a

The UK Government Reply to the Twenty-Third Report from the Joint Committe on Human Rights Session 2008-09 HL PAPER 152, HC 230

text text

insert pdf here

Code for Crown Prosecutors – Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.

General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

  • Territory;
  • Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  • Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  • Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts

Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

  • sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
  • murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  • terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  • bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold.

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction – European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the Extradition legal guidance.

Guidance

Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

  • Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  • The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  • The location and interests of witnesses;
  • The location and interests of the accused;
  • Delays.

These factors have recently been formulated into the Director’s Guidelines on the handling of cases where the Jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with Prosecuting Authorities Overseas

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at Annex A. For the full report, see http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm

Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland

The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the “Agreement for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America”.

Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the Visiting Forces legal guidance.

Procedure

Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Principle

Code for Crown Prosecutors – Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.

General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

  • Territory;
  • Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  • Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  • Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts

Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

  • sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
  • murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  • terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  • bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold.

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction – European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the Extradition legal guidance.

Guidance

Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

  • Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  • The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  • The location and interests of witnesses;
  • The location and interests of the accused;
  • Delays.

These factors have recently been formulated into the Director’s Guidelines on the handling of cases where the Jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with Prosecuting Authorities Overseas

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at Annex A. For the full report, see http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm

Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland

The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the “Agreement for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America”.

Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the Visiting Forces legal guidance.

Procedure

Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Annex A – Eurojust Guidelines, Annual Report 2003, Making the Decision – “Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute?”

A Presumption

There should be a preliminary presumption that, if possible, a prosecution should take place in the jurisdiction where the majority of the criminality occurred or where the majority of the loss was sustained. When reaching a decision, prosecutors should balance carefully and fairly all the factors both for and against commencing a prosecution in each jurisdiction where it is possible to do so.

There are a number of factors that should be considered and can affect the final decision. All these factors should be considered at the meeting of prosecutors from the relevant states affected by the criminality concerned. Making a decision will depend on the circumstances of each case and this guidance is intended to bring consistency to every decision-making process.

Some of the factors which should be considered are:

The Location of the Accused

The possibility of a prosecution in that jurisdiction and whether extradition proceedings or transfer of proceedings are possible will all be factors that should be taken into consideration.

Extradition and Surrender of Persons

The capacity of the competent authorities in one jurisdiction to extradite or surrender a defendant from another jurisdiction to face prosecution in their jurisdiction will be a factor in deciding where that defendant may be prosecuted.

Dividing the Prosecution into Cases in Two or More Jurisdictions

The investigation and prosecution of complex cases of cross border crime will often lead to the possibility of a number of prosecutions in different jurisdictions.

In cases where the criminality occurred in several jurisdictions, provided it is practicable to do so, prosecutors should consider dealing with all the prosecutions in one jurisdiction. In such cases prosecutors should take into account the effect that prosecuting some defendants in one jurisdiction will have on any prosecution in a second or third jurisdiction. Every effort should be made to guard against one prosecution undermining another. When several criminals are alleged to be involved in linked criminal conduct, whilst often it may not be practicable, if it is possible and efficient to do so, prosecutors should consider prosecuting all those involved together in one jurisdiction.

The Attendance of Witnesses

Securing a just and fair conviction is a priority for every prosecutor. Prosecutors will have to consider the willingness of witnesses both to give evidence and, if necessary, to travel to another jurisdiction to give that evidence. In the absence of an international witness warrant, the possibility of the court receiving evidence in written form or by other means, such as remotely (by telephone or video-link), will have to be considered. The willingness of a witness to travel and give evidence in another jurisdiction should be considered carefully as this is a factor likely to influence the decision as to where a prosecution is issued.

The Protection of Witnesses

Prosecutors should always seek to ensure that witnesses or those who are assisting the prosecution process are not endangered. When making a decision on the jurisdiction for prosecution, factors for consideration may include, for example, the possibility of one jurisdiction being able to offer a witness protection programme when another has no such possibility.

Delay

A maxim recognised in all jurisdictions is that: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Whilst time should not be the leading factor in deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute, where other factors are balanced then prosecutors should consider the length of time which proceedings will take to be concluded in a jurisdiction. If several states have jurisdiction to prosecute, one consideration should always be how long it will take for the proceedings to be concluded.

Interests of Victims

Prosecutors must take into account the interests of victims and whether they would be prejudiced if any prosecution were to take place in one jurisdiction rather than another. Such consideration would include the possibility of victims claiming compensation.

Evidential Problems

Prosecutors can only pursue cases using reliable, credible and admissible evidence. Evidence is collected in different ways and often in very different forms in different jurisdictions. Courts in different jurisdictions have different rules for the acceptance of evidence often gathered in very diverse formats. The availability of evidence in the proper form and its admissibility and acceptance by the court must be considered as these factors will affect and influence the decision on where a prosecution might be brought. These are factors which prosecutors must consider when reaching any decision on where a prosecution should be instituted.

Legal Requirements

Prosecutors must not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another simply to avoid complying with the legal obligations that apply in one jurisdiction but not in another.

All the possible effects of a decision to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another and the potential outcome of each case should be considered. These matters include the liability of potential defendants and the availability of appropriate offences and penalties.

Sentencing Powers

The relative sentencing powers of courts in the different potential prosecution jurisdictions must not be a primary factor in deciding in which jurisdiction a case should be prosecuted. Prosecutors should not seek to prosecute cases in a jurisdiction where the penalties are highest. Prosecutors should however ensure that the potential penalties available reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct which is subject to the prosecution.

Proceeds of Crime

Prosecutors should not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another only because it would result in the more effective recovery of the proceeds of crime. Prosecutors should always give consideration to the powers available to restrain, recover, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime and make the most effective use of international co-operation agreements in such matters.

Resources and Costs of Prosecuting

The costs of prosecuting a case, or its impact on the resources of a prosecution office, should only be a factor in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted in one jurisdiction rather than in another when all other factors are equally balanced. Competent authorities should not refuse to accept a case for prosecution in their jurisdiction because the case does not interest them or is not a priority for the senior prosecutors or the Ministries of Justice. Where a competent authority has expressed a reluctance to prosecute a case for these reasons, Eurojust will be prepared to consider exercising its powers to persuade the authority to act.

Human-Rights-Session-2008-09-HL-PAPER-152-HC-230-200x200

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture

By | TORTURE
Allegations-of-UK-Complicity-in-Torture-img

Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture

First Published (LinkedIn) on 28th December 2017
Allegations-of-UK-Complicity-in-Torture-pro-200x200

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
885

Enter more text here

“THE POLICE BEAT ME UP”

I am in the process of writing a

Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture

text text

insert pdf here

Code for Crown Prosecutors – Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.

General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

  • Territory;
  • Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  • Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  • Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts

Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

  • sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
  • murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  • terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  • bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold.

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction – European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the Extradition legal guidance.

Guidance

Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

  • Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  • The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  • The location and interests of witnesses;
  • The location and interests of the accused;
  • Delays.

These factors have recently been formulated into the Director’s Guidelines on the handling of cases where the Jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with Prosecuting Authorities Overseas

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at Annex A. For the full report, see http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm

Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland

The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the “Agreement for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America”.

Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the Visiting Forces legal guidance.

Procedure

Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Principle

Code for Crown Prosecutors – Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.

General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

  • Territory;
  • Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  • Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  • Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts

Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

  • sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
  • murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  • terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  • bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold.

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction – European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the Extradition legal guidance.

Guidance

Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

  • Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  • The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  • The location and interests of witnesses;
  • The location and interests of the accused;
  • Delays.

These factors have recently been formulated into the Director’s Guidelines on the handling of cases where the Jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with Prosecuting Authorities Overseas

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at Annex A. For the full report, see http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm

Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland

The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the “Agreement for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America”.

Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the Visiting Forces legal guidance.

Procedure

Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Annex A – Eurojust Guidelines, Annual Report 2003, Making the Decision – “Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute?”

A Presumption

There should be a preliminary presumption that, if possible, a prosecution should take place in the jurisdiction where the majority of the criminality occurred or where the majority of the loss was sustained. When reaching a decision, prosecutors should balance carefully and fairly all the factors both for and against commencing a prosecution in each jurisdiction where it is possible to do so.

There are a number of factors that should be considered and can affect the final decision. All these factors should be considered at the meeting of prosecutors from the relevant states affected by the criminality concerned. Making a decision will depend on the circumstances of each case and this guidance is intended to bring consistency to every decision-making process.

Some of the factors which should be considered are:

The Location of the Accused

The possibility of a prosecution in that jurisdiction and whether extradition proceedings or transfer of proceedings are possible will all be factors that should be taken into consideration.

Extradition and Surrender of Persons

The capacity of the competent authorities in one jurisdiction to extradite or surrender a defendant from another jurisdiction to face prosecution in their jurisdiction will be a factor in deciding where that defendant may be prosecuted.

Dividing the Prosecution into Cases in Two or More Jurisdictions

The investigation and prosecution of complex cases of cross border crime will often lead to the possibility of a number of prosecutions in different jurisdictions.

In cases where the criminality occurred in several jurisdictions, provided it is practicable to do so, prosecutors should consider dealing with all the prosecutions in one jurisdiction. In such cases prosecutors should take into account the effect that prosecuting some defendants in one jurisdiction will have on any prosecution in a second or third jurisdiction. Every effort should be made to guard against one prosecution undermining another. When several criminals are alleged to be involved in linked criminal conduct, whilst often it may not be practicable, if it is possible and efficient to do so, prosecutors should consider prosecuting all those involved together in one jurisdiction.

The Attendance of Witnesses

Securing a just and fair conviction is a priority for every prosecutor. Prosecutors will have to consider the willingness of witnesses both to give evidence and, if necessary, to travel to another jurisdiction to give that evidence. In the absence of an international witness warrant, the possibility of the court receiving evidence in written form or by other means, such as remotely (by telephone or video-link), will have to be considered. The willingness of a witness to travel and give evidence in another jurisdiction should be considered carefully as this is a factor likely to influence the decision as to where a prosecution is issued.

The Protection of Witnesses

Prosecutors should always seek to ensure that witnesses or those who are assisting the prosecution process are not endangered. When making a decision on the jurisdiction for prosecution, factors for consideration may include, for example, the possibility of one jurisdiction being able to offer a witness protection programme when another has no such possibility.

Delay

A maxim recognised in all jurisdictions is that: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Whilst time should not be the leading factor in deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute, where other factors are balanced then prosecutors should consider the length of time which proceedings will take to be concluded in a jurisdiction. If several states have jurisdiction to prosecute, one consideration should always be how long it will take for the proceedings to be concluded.

Interests of Victims

Prosecutors must take into account the interests of victims and whether they would be prejudiced if any prosecution were to take place in one jurisdiction rather than another. Such consideration would include the possibility of victims claiming compensation.

Evidential Problems

Prosecutors can only pursue cases using reliable, credible and admissible evidence. Evidence is collected in different ways and often in very different forms in different jurisdictions. Courts in different jurisdictions have different rules for the acceptance of evidence often gathered in very diverse formats. The availability of evidence in the proper form and its admissibility and acceptance by the court must be considered as these factors will affect and influence the decision on where a prosecution might be brought. These are factors which prosecutors must consider when reaching any decision on where a prosecution should be instituted.

Legal Requirements

Prosecutors must not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another simply to avoid complying with the legal obligations that apply in one jurisdiction but not in another.

All the possible effects of a decision to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another and the potential outcome of each case should be considered. These matters include the liability of potential defendants and the availability of appropriate offences and penalties.

Sentencing Powers

The relative sentencing powers of courts in the different potential prosecution jurisdictions must not be a primary factor in deciding in which jurisdiction a case should be prosecuted. Prosecutors should not seek to prosecute cases in a jurisdiction where the penalties are highest. Prosecutors should however ensure that the potential penalties available reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct which is subject to the prosecution.

Proceeds of Crime

Prosecutors should not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another only because it would result in the more effective recovery of the proceeds of crime. Prosecutors should always give consideration to the powers available to restrain, recover, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime and make the most effective use of international co-operation agreements in such matters.

Resources and Costs of Prosecuting

The costs of prosecuting a case, or its impact on the resources of a prosecution office, should only be a factor in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted in one jurisdiction rather than in another when all other factors are equally balanced. Competent authorities should not refuse to accept a case for prosecution in their jurisdiction because the case does not interest them or is not a priority for the senior prosecutors or the Ministries of Justice. Where a competent authority has expressed a reluctance to prosecute a case for these reasons, Eurojust will be prepared to consider exercising its powers to persuade the authority to act.

Allegations-of-UK-Complicity-in-Torture-pro-200x200

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

What about My Fractured Cheekbone?

By | TORTURE
What-about-My-Fractured-Cheekbone-img-1300x400-imgs

What about My Fractured Cheekbone?

First Published on 28th December 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
1239

Joseph de Saram was tortured during the Psychiatric Fraud of December 2015. As part of that he was repeatedly hit in the face by Edward de Saram and/or the parties he had brought. Notwithstanding the serious injuries inflicted Joseph de Saram was mentally alert and there was no stress-induced psychosis to the disappointment of Joseph’s assailants…

One of the most obvious things apart from the severity of my facial injuries in the confirmation that both EDS and PDS are absolutely unconcerned for my injuries, which they themselves have caused.

CLASSIC PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM

These actual recordings contradict the facade that they present to third parties, as being doughting parents…

Malice Aforethought – n.

1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder.

2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others.

The Depraved State of Mind - Malice Aforethought

The mens rea for the offence of murder is ‘malice aforethought’. Malice Aforethought – n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder.

20151218_054228_01-Serious-Facial-Injuries-After-Torture-b850b9ebb2_07632_annotated.png

Note the similarities in the affected facial contour…

Cronulla captain Trent Barrett out for rest of season with fractured cheekbone and eye socket

THEY have climbed off the bottom of the table with a series of gutsy performances, but the Sharks were last night sent hurtling back towards the wooden spoon with star playmaker Trent Barrett ruled out for the rest of the season with a fractured cheekbone and cracked eye socket.

20151219 214705 11 Joseph De Saram Praxy De Saram Fractured Cheek Bone Who Will Pay

Excellent example of a Police technique – PDS decides to cough repeatedly instead of answering a legitimate question in relation to

“Who’s paying for my Cheekbone?”

 

Coughing Cheaters

The Police and/or their Investigator agents are blatantly interfering with judicial proceedings that I am involved with in Singapore and Australia. When I am seeking legal representation even from UK Attorneys, they seem fixated with these non-UK jurisdictions and it seems that there is a deliberate attempt to fabricate something massive against me to cause me unnecessary hardship and ‘soften me up’.

Then the following up question of

“Who’s going to pay for the pain of the shit being kicked out of me, who’s going to pay for that?”

receives the typical response from PDS of ‘playing dumb’ and then her evasive responses which do not address my actual concernes.

20151219 214705 12 Joseph De Saram Edward De Saram Videos Cheek Bone Damaged

One of the most irritating things about PDS is that her poor self-esteem means that she has been a doormat for an entire life. As such when she is in a position of ‘power and control’ over someone such as I, then she becomes ‘bolshy and tries to exert pseudo-power.” 

But the bottom line is that neither parent gives a shit about what they have done 🙂

“I found two videos today, when I was on the roof, like all the carry-on downstairs about Money Disruption.”

Jason and the Aldridgenauts

I had noticed a Jason Aldridge from late 2015 early 2016 had been looking at my LinkedIn profile. I will locate those logs in due course but around the same time I noticed various accesses from obviously associated parties, often concurrently.

and then

“Then you come to a decision whether this charade is going to continue because my cheekbone is all damaged, and I don’t feel very well after having my face kicked in, so you really need to look at the entirety of stuff…”

 

Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988

“THE POLICE BEAT ME UP” I am in the process of writing a number of articles in relation to ‘Evidence of Military Intelligence Operation was Destroyed via Psychiatric Fraud’ and this article “Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988“ is one that I will be referring to. I will insert initial evidence into this article however.

Types of Fracture

While some facial injuries are minor and heal quickly, some can be life-threatening. Facial fractures have the potential to interfere with your ability to breathe or see. Whenever you’ve had facial trauma, it’s important to get medical attention immediately so your doctor can diagnose the extent of the injury.

Here are the six most common types of facial fractures:

1.Nasal

The nasal bones are thinner than the rest of the facial bones, plus they protrude from the face. Thus, they’re the most likely to break. Some signs of a nasal fracture include a nosebleed, bruising, difficulty breathing through the nose, swelling and pain. The nose may look crooked or bent.

2. Frontal Bone

The frontal bone is in your forehead. It’s most likely to break after a high-impact hit to the front of your head. The bone is the thinnest in the middle of your forehead, so this is often where the fracture happens. Since it takes a powerful force to fracture the frontal bone, you may have other injuries as well.

If your forehead looks like it has been pushed inward or you have sinus pain, you could have a frontal bone injury.

3. Zygomatic Maxillary

Your cheekbones are known as zygomas. They are attached to your upper jaw (maxilla) in multiple locations. A zygomatic maxillary fracture is typically characterized by a flat cheek, a change in sensation underneath the eye and problems moving the eye above the affected cheekbone.

4. Orbital

The orbital bone, or eye socket, may fracture after blunt force trauma, such as on object hitting the eye. You could have an orbital rim fracture, which is the thick outer part of the eye socket. A blowout fracture means there is a crack in the lower portion of the eye socket, which can restrict eye movement. A direct orbital floor fracture is a break in the lower eye socket.

Blurry vision, numbness around the eye, swelling and significant bruising can all point to an orbital fracture.

5. Mid-face

Swelling anywhere on the face could point to a mid-face fracture, also known as a Le Fort fracture, which is categorized as I, II or III. What each type has in common is the fracture of the pterygoid processes, part of the sphenoid bone. Inflammation or deformities on the face could indicate a type of Le Fort fracture.

6. Mandible

Your mandible, or lower jaw, is integral to talking and eating. A fracture in any part of the mandible will affect your ability to open your mouth. You could also have broken or loose teeth. If you have severe pain when you try to close your mouth, any numbness, or you feel like your teeth don’t fit together right, it’s time for an evaluation.

Let Northeast Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery diagnose the extent of your facial fractures and recommend the best course of treatment. Whether you simply need watchful care or a skilled surgical repair, our team can help.

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

UN Convention Against Torture

By | TORTURE
UN-Convention-Against-Torture

UN Convention Against Torture

First published (Un-LinkedIn) on 09th December 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
997

Enter more text here

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1. On the basis of its experience in considering individual communications under Article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), addressing allegations of violation by States parties of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee against Torture ....

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Convention against Torture and Other Crue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Convention against Torture and Other Crue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1) The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal ...

Convention against Torture and Other Crue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

MULTILATERAL

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

MULTILATERAL

Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 Decem ber 1984 Authentic texts: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Registered ex officio on 26 June 1987.

MULTILATERAL

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 Decem ber 1984 Authentic texts: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Registered ex officio on 26 June 1987.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

UK to be examined on UN Convention against Torture

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

UK to be examined on UN Convention against Torture

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international human rights treaty. Its purpose is to prevent the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ill-treatment).

UK to be examined on UN Convention against Torture

UK’s 6th Peridoic report under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

UK's 6th Peridoic report under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international human rights treaty.

UK's 6th Peridoic report under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

By | TORTURE
the Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

First Published (LinkedIn) on 28th December 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
1080

Enter more text here

Aurélia Ernst – The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Aurélia Ernst - The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

This book is based on my doctoral thesis, which I defended at the Faculty of Law of the Humboldt University of Berlin in March 2014. I would first like to thank the supervisor of my doctoral thesis, Professor Georg Nolte, who showed particular interest in the topic and provided invaluable aca- demic guidance. I would also like to thank Sir Nigel Rodley, who encour - aged me to write a Ph.D. on this topic and ...

Aurélia Ernst - The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

Tainted by Torture – Examining the Use of Torture Evidence

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Tainted by Torture - Examining the Use of Torture Evidence

Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards.

Tainted by Torture - Examining the Use of Torture Evidence

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Psychological Difficulty of Defining Torture in Law and Policy

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Psychological Difficulty of Defining Torture in Law and Policy

This Article draws upon recent social psychological research to demonstrate the psychological difficulty of distinguishing between torture and enhanced interrogation. We critique the accuracy of evaluations made under the current torture standard using two constructs—reliability and validity—that are employed in the social sciences to assess the quality ...

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Psychological Difficulty of Defining Torture in Law and Policy

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

This Article puts forward two interdependent conceptual reforms at the intersection of state torture, visuality, and law. First, to qualify as good evidence-legally and socially-torture images are usually required to be "accurate" and "transparent," to successfully suppress all traces of the mediation and representation at work. However, this Article suggests that ...

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

Evidence Obtained by Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: Why the Convention Against Torture’s Exclusionary Rule Should be Inclusive

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Evidence Obtained by Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: Why the Convention Against Torture’s Exclusionary Rule Should be Inclusive

I. INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent launch of the “war on terror,”1 discussion of the issues related to torture gained new momentum. Lawyers and state officials started ...

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

More Finger Breaking Torture – Jamal Khashoggi Dragged, Beaten, Paralysed, Finally Decapitated

By | TORTURE
main_h771300x400-imgs

More Finger Breaking Torture - Jamal Khashoggi Dragged, Beaten, Paralysed, Finally Decapitated

Published on 19th January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
602

Joseph de Saram almost suffered the same fate as Jamal Khashoggi. The latter had entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on 02 October 2018, but did not leave the building. Amid news reports claiming that he had been killed and dismembered inside, an inspection of the consulate, by Saudi Arabian and Turkish officials, took place on 15 October. Initially the Saudi Arabian government denied the death, claiming Khashoggi had left the consulate alive, but on 20 October admitted that Khashoggi was killed inside the consulate, claiming he had been strangled to death after a fight had broken out.[12] This was later contradicted when, on 25 October, Saudi Arabia’s attorney general stated that the murder was premeditated.[13][14]

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture

olor

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture

The fingers of the missing Saudi Arabian journalist were pulled off as he was being tortured and his body was dismembered over a seven -minute period, pro-Turkish government newspapers claimed today. The new details emerged as the global row intensified over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist who had been critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the effective leader of the kingdom...

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture

olor

Khashoggi’s fingers ‘pulled off during torture’

The fingers of the missing Saudi Arabian journalist were pulled off as he was being tortured and his body was dismembered over a seven -minute period, pro-Turkish government newspapers claimed today. The new details emerged as the global row intensified over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist who had been critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the effective leader of the kingdom...

Khashoggi’s fingers ‘pulled off during torture’

The fingers of the missing Saudi Arabian journalist were pulled off as he was being tortured and his body was dismembered over a seven -minute period, pro-Turkish government newspapers claimed today.

The new details emerged as the global row intensified over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist who had been critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the effective leader of the kingdom. Khashoggi has been missing since October 2 when he visited the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul.

The fresh leaks in the Turkish press this morning provide the strongest hints yet that Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered inside the consulate.

Sabah, a newspaper which is owned by the brother of President Erdogan’s son-in-law, reported today that samples of six different sets of DNA had been collected from inside the consulate.

Meanwhile Yeni Safak, another newspaper close to the palace, claims to have obtained the audio recordings of Khashoggi’s killing.

Mr Pompeo met King Salman and the crown prince on a whirlwind trip to Riyadh yesterday, prior to flying to Turkey. For the cameras there were jovial smiles, despite the other graphic claims circulating in Turkish media that the crown prince ordered the killing and dismemberment of Khashoggi.

Back in Washington Mr Trump said that the crown prince had promised a “full and complete investigation. Answers will be forthcoming shortly.”

Mr Trump criticised the rush to blame Saudi Arabia for Khashoggi’s disappearance. “Here we go again with your ‘guilty until proven innocent’,” Mr Trump said comparing the global outcry to sexual assault allegations levelled against Brett Kavanaugh when the judge was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Republican leaders in Washington made clear that they did not accept the alternative explanations put forward for Khashoggi’s disappearance. He would have been 60 on Saturday. Lindsey Graham, a US senator close to Mr Trump, said that the death ofThe Washington Post columnist could not have been ordered by anyone other than the crown prince, known popularly by his initials, MBS.

“Nothing happens in Saudi Arabia without MBS knowing it,” he said in a Fox News interview that was unparalleled in the ferocity he displayed towards a key US ally. “I’ve been their biggest defender on the floor of the United States Senate [but] this guy is a wrecking ball,” he continued. “He had this guy murdered in a consulate in Turkey and to expect me to ignore it — I feel used and abused. The MBS figure is to me toxic. He can never be a world leader on the world stage.”

After a phone conversation with King Salman, President Trump said on Monday night that it was possible Khashoggi had been the victim of “rogue killers”. Unnamed sources have said that Saudi Arabia was about to confess to the killing but blame it on an interrogation or abduction attempt that went wrong.

If that was an explanation that had been put to or even worked out with Turkey as part of a joint attempt to save face, as some suggested, its revelation seemed to backfire. After forensic scientists and a prosecutor completed an examination of the Saudi consulate in Istanbul yesterday morning, they were told to move on to the consul-general’s residence, where officials have implied Khashoggi’s body was dismembered.

President Erdogan told reporters about some of the forensic scientists’ findings. He also made a further direct allegation of a Saudi Arabian cover-up, in an apparent snub to hopes in the White House and Riyadh of a face-saving “joint investigation”.

“My hope is that we can reach conclusions that will give us a reasonable opinion as soon as possible,” Mr Erdogan told reporters. “The investigation is looking into many things such as toxic materials and those materials being removed by painting them over.”

Later in the day Turkish officials briefed local media that the forensic scientists had found “evidence that Khashoggi was killed in the consulate”. The accusations were a sharp contrast with the outward appearance of Mr Pompeo’s arrival in Riyadh, where he saw the king, for 15 minutes, and the crown prince, for 40 minutes.

Photographs of Mr Pompeo shaking the crown prince’s hand and laughing with him did nothing to assuage fears on Capitol Hill, where concern is growing over the future of the Saudi-US relationship. After his talks Mr Pompeo issued a statement saying: “My assessment from these meetings is that there is serious commitment to determine all the facts and ensure accountability, including accountability for Saudi Arabia’s senior leaders and senior officials.”

The crown prince emphasised that the two countries were “strong and old allies”. “We face our challenges together,” he told Mr Pompeo before the cameras.

In Washington Marco Rubio, another Republican senator, said that there was not “enough money in the world to purchase back our credibility on human rights” if America took the explanation for granted and did not punish Riyadh. He said that reputation was more important than continued arms sales — the value of which was specifically cited by Mr Trump as a reason not to be too hard on Riyadh.

Mr Rubio said there had been a “fear” for a long time that the crown prince was a “young and aggressive” guy.

At the weekend Saudi Arabia sent nine of its officials to join the investigation into Khashoggi’s disappearance, but has said virtually nothing about what they have done or discovered so far. A well-connected newspaper in Riyadh said that officials had called in for questioning the 15 men Turkey identified from passport control security cameras as having travelled to Istanbul on the day Khashoggi went missing. Among the men since identified are the forensic science chief in the general security department, military officers and a member of the royal guard seen with the crown prince.

The New York Times reported that four of the men were linked to the crown prince’s security detail. Saudi media claim that the 15 men were tourists and continue to describe the Turkish allegations as “lurid” fiction.

The backlash to Khashoggi’s disappearance has hit a key Saudi investment conference next week. Business leaders have continued to drop out. Tidjane Thiam, the Credit Suisse chief executive, John Flint, the chief executive of HSBC, and Jean Lemierre, the chairman of BNP Paribas, became the latest high profile bankers to pull out.

Liam Fox, Britain’s international trade secretary, and Steven Mnuchin, the US Treasury secretary, are still due to attend. However Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has deferred a visit to the Middle East which would have included attending the conference.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla blandit gravida massa, vel congue diam viverra id. 

Jamal Khashoggi: Saudi ‘death’ squad identified from leaked airport footage

The 15 members of the squad the Turkish authorities believe to be implicated in the disappearance and possible killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi have been identified from immigration surveillance footage. Video stills showing the 15 men as they entered the country and went through passport control on Tuesday October 2, the day Mr Khashoggi went missing, were leaked to Turkish newspapers overnight.

The 15 members of the squad the Turkish authorities believe to be implicated in the disappearance and possible killing of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi have been identified from immigration surveillance footage.

Video stills showing the 15 men as they entered the country and went through passport control on Tuesday October 2, the day Mr Khashoggi went missing, were leaked to Turkish newspapers overnight.

Some of the names and photographs have been matched to known members of the Saudi army and other security forces. One is said to be a senior government forensic scientist.

The revelation will put more pressure on the Saudi government to account for the men’s activities. It has issued a blanket denial of the claims it killed Mr Khashoggi, calling them “baseless”, and said it too was concerned for the safety of “a Saudi citizen”.

It is also allowing the Turkish authorities to search the consulate building which Mr Khashoggi visited by prior appointment to receive papers confirming his divorce, along with the residence of the consul-general, which is also implicated.

However, there may be more gruesome leaks to come. One Turkish government adviser claimed in a television interview last night that the authorities had a video of the killing, made by the Saudis themselves as proof of death, but somehow obtained by Turkish intelligence.

Turkish papers, particularly The Daily Sabah, which is close to the government of President Erdogan, have been drip-fed details of the police investigation, in the absence of formal police statements. Many Saudi supporters are still claiming the Turkish police operation is an elaborate sham intended to embarrass Riyadh, a regional rival, particularly because of its support for Qatar, which Saudi Arabia is trying to blockade.

The video and pictures released overnight, however, match previous known details. They include a fuller video of Mr Khashoggi entering the consulate at 1.14pm, as claimed by his Turkish fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, who went with him for his appointment, but remained outside with his mobile phone.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla blandit gravida massa, vel congue diam viverra id. 

Jamal Khashoggi news: First his fingers were cut off, then his head

HIS killers were waiting when Jamal Khashoggi walked into the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul two weeks ago. In November he ordered the detention of at least 11 fellow princes and hundreds of businessmen and government officials over claims of corruption.

By that time, according to videos released this morning to a television channel, many of the men in the squad had arrived at the consulate, some via the Movenpick and Wyndham hotels nearby.

Shortly after 3pm six vehicles with diplomatic plates the authorities have already said were of interest are shown by the footage leaving the consulate’s parking area. One of them, a Mercedes Vito van also seen parked outside in the video of Mr Khashoggi entering the building, along with a black saloon car, are shown in the new video turning in the direction of the consul-general’s residence 200 yards away.

Video from another camera shows them arriving at the residence. They park outside, a number of men get out, and the van then drives into the residence compound. The television report openly speculates that Mr Khashoggi, or his body, is inside the van.

The names and photographs of the men in the passport queue video stills have begun to be matched on social media with known people. Two are said to be air force officers, one a special forces officer, and one an officer previously seen in a photograph with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, suggesting he is a member of the royal guard.

One is said to be head of forensic science in the government’s general security department.

Yet another is said to be an intelligence officer previously stationed in the Saudi embassy in London.

The new details will put further pressure on Saudi Arabia’s western allies. The Washington Post, for which Mr Khashoggi wrote columns critical of the crown prince, cited US officials saying intercepted communications had suggested the Saudi authorities were keen to capture Mr Khashoggi.

His killing and, if the Turkish reports are correct, dismemberment would be a step-change in Saudi practice, however.

Lorem ipsum 

Jamal Khashoggi: Turkish spies 'listened in as journalist was butchered'

urkish spies knew Saudi Arabia was plotting against Jamal Khashoggi, weeks before he was killed, sources have told the Daily Mirror. Intelligence chiefs launched a huge surveillance operation to track the hit squad sent by Riyadh. The Saudi consulate in Istanbul was bugged, and spies listened in as Mr Khashoggi was killed and dismembered, it is claimed.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. 

CIA Director Gina Haspel 'has heard the audio of torture and killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi officials'

Gina Haspel was sent to Turkey on Monday to help investigate Khashoggi killing CIA Director was reportedly played audio recording of his torture and murder' If true, it would be the first time a US government figure has heard the evidence Turkey accuses Saudi Arabia and its Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of ordering the killing, while the Arabic ...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. 

Jamal Khashoggi: Missing Saudi journalist 'killed by snatch squad as he struggled to resist being taken' ...

A missing journalist was ­probably murdered during an attempted abduction to take him to Saudi Arabia. A snatch squad, unaware of Jamal Khashoggi’s poor health, is believed to have killed him as he struggled to resist being taken. Saudi critic Khashoggi, 60, was last seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 2.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. 

Jamal Khashoggi’s fiancée under police protection in Turkey

Turkey’s official news agency says Hatice Cengiz, fiancée of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi has been given 24-hour police protection. Anadolu News Agency reported that the decision was made by the Istanbul governor’s office Sunday, citing an anonymous security official, but did not say why Cengiz was given police protection.

Background

During the completely ballsed-up ‘UK-US themed’ counter-terrorism / surveillance operation against me:-

How to Identify Cellular Interception via Pure Forensic Analysis

The video above is by Annie Machon, an ex-Intelligence Officer who worked for MI5. Annie is one of the few of us left who actually have Brains & ...
irrefutable-identification-of-cellular-interception-via-pure-forensic-analysis-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin-featured

Illegal rendition cover up continues: Government seeks secret hearing for first time in victims’ case - Reprieve

The Government is asking the High Court to use secret proceedings in a case brought by victims of a UK-US rendition during the ‘War on Terror’. This is the first time such powers are set to be used in a rendition ...

Director of Public Prosecutions asks Foreign Office to withhold evidence in torture case - Reprieve

Britain’s most senior prosecutor has asked the Foreign Office to apply to withhold evidence from two survivors of a UK-US ‘rendition’, it emerged today. The move surfaced in a court hearing involving the 2004 rendition of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and his...

Q&A: UK rendition allegations

What is the background to allegations of rendition and torture relating to British security services?
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Sudden Cardiac Arrest caused by Psychological and Physical Torture

By | TORTURE
sudden-cardiac-arrest-caused-by-psychological-and-physical-torture-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Sudden Cardiac Arrest caused by Psychological and Physical Torture (±x)

Published on 24th September 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
511

Enter more text here

There is plenty of evidence to support that Intentionally-Inflicted Emotional Distress (“IIED”) can result in grievous bodily harm and even death…

In general, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress involves some kind of conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma in the victim. In such cases, the victim can recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress.

Not all offensive conduct qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress, however. People in society must necessarily deal with a certain level of rude or offensive conduct. When the conduct rises to a truly reprehensible level, though, recovery for the resulting emotional trauma becomes available.

Elements

While some states’ specific rules for intentional infliction differ, the following elements are fairly common:

  • Extreme or outrageous conduct that
  • Intentionally or recklessly causes
  • Severe emotional distress (and possible also bodily harm)

If the situation satisfies all of the elements above, the person behaving in the extreme and outrageous manner is liable for both the severe emotional distress and the bodily harm that results from the stress (a miscarriage, for example).

In addition, parties may sometimes recover for emotional distress under circumstances where the extreme and outrageous conduct wasn’t even directed at them. Typically, this kind of claim involves extreme or outrageous conduct towards the claimant’s family member while in the claimant’s presence. This type of claim varies even more widely between the states than the basic intentional infliction tort, but here are some of the general elements of the injury:

  • Extreme and outrageous conduct
  • Directed at a third person that
  • Intentionally or recklessly causes
  • Severe emotional distress
  • To a member of the third person’s immediate family (whether or not bodily harm occurs), or
  • To any other person present if bodily harm occurs

Extreme and Outrageous Conduct

Clearly, one of the most important issues in any claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is defining what exactly constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct. Without extreme and outrageous conduct, the injured party can’t make a claim for intentional infliction even if the actor behaved with malice and/or harmful intent.

Extreme and outrageous conduct goes beyond merely the malicious, harmful or offensive. People must have a certain level of thick skin and possess the ability to weather ordinary rude or obnoxious behavior.

In order to rise to the level of extreme and outrageous, the conduct must exceed all possible bounds of decency. Normal insults or rudeness don’t normally qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct, although they can rise to that level if there is some kind of special relationship between the parties.

In addition, ordinary insults or actions can constitute extreme and outrageous behavior if the actor knows that the victim is particularly susceptible to emotional distress because of some physical or mental condition or abnormality. For example, if Adam knows that Barbara is intensely claustrophobic and intentionally locks her in a closet to scare her, she could possibly recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Exercising a legal right can never amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress, however even if the behavior does cause some severe emotional trauma. If a landlord properly initiates eviction proceedings against a sick and destitute widow who has not paid rent in a year, his actions won’t constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress even if the widow does in fact suffer an extreme emotional reaction. Since the landlord was only exercising his legal rights, his behavior is most likely privileged.

In the end, a jury makes the final decision on whether the conduct in question rises to the level of extreme and outrageous.

Intent/Recklessness

In addition to acting in an extreme an outrageous manner, the actor must act with intent or recklessness. In other words, the actor must intend to cause severe emotional distress or know that severe emotional distress is likely to occur. The actor can also become liable for intentional infliction if they behave with deliberate disregard to the high possibility that severe emotional distress will occur.

For example, if someone receives a text message from their significant other while at a friend’s house, becomes angry, and smashes the urn containing their friend’s mother’s ashes, the friend could possibly win an intentional infliction lawsuit under the theory of reckless disregard.

Severe Emotional Distress

Emotional distress can take many forms. Many unpleasant emotions qualify as emotional distress, including embarrassment, shame, fright and grief.

In order to satisfy the elements of an intentional infliction claim, however, the emotional distress in response to extreme and outrageous behavior must reach a “severe” level. The exact definition of severe emotional distress is vague, and plaintiffs must prove to a jury that the emotional distress they experienced reached a sufficient level of severity to justify an award for intentional infliction.

Some guidelines do exist to help determine whether an emotional disturbance constitutes severe emotional distress. When extreme and outrageous conduct causes suffering such that no reasonable person should have to endure it, a jury will likely hold that the experience reached the level of severe emotional distress.

The intensity and duration of the emotional distress also contribute to its severity. The longer the emotional disturbance continues, the more likely it is to constitute severe emotional distress.

A plaintiff must use evidence to demonstrate their emotional distress to a jury. For example, a plaintiff can use persistent anxiety and paranoia resulting from a Halloween prank gone bad to show that they suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of the conduct.

Sometimes the very nature of the conduct in question will suffice to demonstrate that the victim suffered severe emotional distress. If behavior is particularly disturbing, the plaintiff may not have to offer much evidence to support their claims; the behavior itself is so reprehensible that the emotional distress is almost assumed.

Bodily harm also acts as an indicator that severe emotional distress has occurred. Ulcers or headaches, for example, can show that the plaintiff has experienced severe emotional distress that has revealed itself through these physical symptoms.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - FindLaw

In general, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress involves some kind of conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma in the...

Medical Evidence

Patients with specific neurological, psychiatric or cardiovascular conditions are at enhanced risk of cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death. The neurogenic mechanisms are poorly understood.

However, in many cases, stress may precipitate cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death in vulnerable patients, presumably via centrally driven autonomic nervous system responses. From a cardiological perspective, the likelihood of arrhythmia is strongly associated with abnormalities in electrical repolarization (recovery) of the heart muscle after each contraction.

Inhomogeneous and asymmetric repolarization, reflected in ECG T-wave abnormalities, is associated with a greatly increased risk of arrhythmia, i.e. a proarrhythmic state. We therefore undertook a study to identify the brain mechanisms by which stress can induce cardiac arrhythmia through efferent autonomic drive.

We recruited a typical group of 10 out-patients attending a cardiological clinic. We simultaneously measured brain activity, using H215O PET, and the proarrhythmic state of the heart, using ECG, during mental and physical stress challenges and corresponding control conditions.

Proarrhythmic changes in the heart were quantified from two ECG-derived measures of repolarization inhomogeneity and were related to changes in magnitude and lateralization of regional brain activity reflected in regional cerebral blood flow. Across the patient group, we observed a robust positive relationship between right-lateralized asymmetry in midbrain activity and proarrhythmic abnormalities of cardiac repolarization (apparent in two independent ECG measures) during stress.

This association between stress-induced lateralization of midbrain activity and enhanced arrhythmic vulnerability provides empirical support for a putative mechanism for stress-induced sudden death, wherein lateralization of central autonomic drive during stress results in imbalanced activity in right and left cardiac sympathetic nerves.

A right–left asymmetry in sympathetic drive across the surface of the heart disrupts the electrophysiological homogeneity of ventricular repolarization, predisposing to arrhythmia. Our findings highlight a proximal brain basis for stress-induced cardiac arrhythmic vulnerability.

Mental stress and sudden cardiac death: asymmetric midbrain activity as a linking mechanism | Brain | Oxford Academic

Patients with specific neurological, psychiatric or cardiovascular conditions are at enhanced risk of cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death. The neurogenic mechanisms are poorly understood. However, in many cases, stress may precipitate cardiac ...
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Honour Based Violence

By | TORTURE

Honour Based Violence (±x)

Published on 26th April 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
626

Enter more text here

“There was an unexpected distraction for Professor Robert Kelly when he was being interviewed live on BBC News about South Korea. But he managed to keep his composure and complete the interview successfully.”

When I originally saw this video last month I thought the behaviour of Prof Kelly’s nanny was a little ridiculous and uneducated in the way that she grabbed his two young children.

When I subsequently found out that the woman was his wife, I was initially shocked at the way she manhandled her own children in order to ‘keep up appearances’ but then remembered that ‘Asians living in Asia have a justification for doing the wrong thing’ and ‘have an inability to tell right from wrong’.

Asians in the UK are among the best attorneys and Asians in New York are among the best private bankers. And we all know how clever Asians are in Silicon Valley 🙂

It is the physical location that is responsible for this issues, and the GroupThink environment of course.

Watching the video at 22s, the right arm of the child is violently jerked and I am surprised that there was not an anterior dislocation or even subluxation at her shoulder joint. A torsion fracture is another common injury for children, and I sustained a few whilst playing rugby in the U11s at Barlborough Hall School.

At 31s she is being dragged along the ground by the same arm. Is this normal behaviour? I am from the UK and I find it quite sickening actually.

Western v Asian Culture

The difference between the two are highlighted in two parody videos:-

the first 30 seconds of:-

The UK woman correctly identifies that her child is connected on a cellular-genetic level and that there is a loving bond between the pair of them. She does not allow a third party or event (such as a tv interview) to get in the way of that bond.

The Indian man (any South Asian culture will do) irrationally feels that the action of his son has brought a ‘great’ shame on him (first error of judgement) and then proceeds to beat up the child publicly in order to lift his ‘perceived’ estimation in the eyes of the interviewer (second error of judgement).

Honour Based Violence

A report from 08 December 2015 found that the majority of UK Police were ‘not properly prepared’:-

However I see that my old local police force Derbyshire Constabulary ‘passed all stages of the review’ and were only one of three to do so.

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition

The most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations....

http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safety-advice/Personal-Safety/Forced-Marriages-and-Honour-Abuse.asp

Of course it is a shame that Edward de Saram (“EDS”) was ignorant of the report and his fraud of 17 December 2015 really fooled no-one apart from him, his audience and HMRC/NCA.

Asian Culture

‘Forced Marriage’ is the typical crime that comes to mind and the public perception tends to be about a woman who has done the ‘wrong thing’. Even children ‘disobeying’ their parents is the most heinous of crimes and I learned this the hard way when EDS discovered a love-letter from Ruth Burke in May 1986 or being told that I was not at a ‘marriageable age’ when ‘going out’ with Lisa Herbert. In these situations the fact that I had a girlfriend (or 10) was a massive problem.

A lot of the issues arise from ineptitude and complete lack of exposure of South Asians to the real world. I have realised that this issue is prevalent in countries that have formerly been British Colonies. It would seem that in Days of Empire, the ones in charge and who had the money were the ones who were best dressed.

Local Asians who were ordered around therefore identified those superior to them by their appearance and for many of the illiterate ones this was the only way.

And when the Asians returned to their children, they would chastise them in a humiliating way (given the fact that the parents most probably would have felt humiliated by having foreigners tell them what to do). However this does not imply that the foreigners treated them poorly – it is the irrational perception of the Asians and their own self-victimisation by which they get ‘brownie’ points (literally).

Actually this feature of Asians being subservient is known as MacArthur Syndrome:-

An example of this is when Sri Lanka played Australia at cricket, say around 20yrs ago. Despite Sri Lanka being the better team, the players would let their ‘irrational fear of the perceived strength of the opposition’ prevent them playing to the best of their abilities. Sri Lanka would then lose and the result would give credence to their original flawed opinion.

Asian Parents

These self-destructive self-fulfilling prophecies are often found in cultures where parents feel they ‘own’ their children.

Asian parents believes that they own their children and that's why they are so controlling? • r/AsianParentStories

As such the way for such Asians to survive in an ‘irrationally illogical’ culture was to focus on being ‘superficial two-faced polished turds’. The other cultural issue is that Asians have poor self-discipline – even my Singapore lawyers were classless liars and it is all about ‘what can they get away with’ rather than ‘full compliance with the law’ or even professional ethics.

Crown Prosecution Service – Honour based violence

  1. There is no specific offence of “honour based crime”. It is an umbrella term to encompass various offences covered by existing legislation. Honour based violence (HBV) can be described as a collection of practices, which are used to control behaviour within families or other social groups to protect perceived cultural and religious beliefs and/or honour. Such violence can occur when perpetrators perceive that a relative has shamed the family and/or community by breaking their honour code.
  2. It is a violation of human rights and may be a form of domestic and/or sexual violence. There is no, and cannot be, honour or justification for abusing the human rights of others.
  3. The CPS, ACPO and support groups have a common definition of HBV:
“‘Honour based violence’ is a crime or incident which has or may have been committed to protect or defend the honour of the family and/or community.”

Human Rights

I have always been a Human Rights Activist though that was in relation to mass electronic surveillance:-

Article 12.

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

Article 19.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

After what happened on 17 December 2015:-

Asking these fools why I need to open the door yielded an answer ‘Money Disruption’ – what does that mean? Or is that the new term for ‘Money Laundering’ – given the involvement of HMRC I think it is MLAT-related 🙂

I realised that other Fundamental Human Rights should never be taken for granted.

The enhanced audio is at http://www.jsrds.rehab and it really does confirm the fraud.

HMRC is Inextricably Involved

Ray Callingham failed in his mission to get the HMRC forms signed which would have opened up my income and asset structures – so after Fake Probable Cause and Staged Crime Scenes were effected by EDS from December 2015 onwards I needed to be removed from the house to enable their fraud to progress with no oversight. It is SO obvious really.

Clearly parties had been informed that I was under some criminal investigation (for not going to church or not eating enough vegetables, or some other crap propagated by the Melbourne Fraudsters no doubt) and EDS equated an ‘investigation’ to a ‘conviction’ and was goaded on by, and acting in the capacity of an agent of HMRC/NCA.

So actually did HMRC beat me up ? It is entirely foreseeable that investigators turning up to Sri Lanka stirring up people with the promise of references from the Queen and a new life if they helped them ‘catch’ me would have directly led to fools here taking the law into their own hands and inflicting violence against me.

Crown Prosecution Service – Extra Territorial Jurisdiction

  1. Subss (7) and (8) make provision to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over both the coercion and deception elements of the new offence. Any of the prohibited acts in subss (1) and (2) carried out outside the UK by a UK national or person habitually resident in England or Wales, or to a UK national or person habitually resident in England or Wales, will be an offence under domestic law and triable in the courts of England and Wales. The effect of subs (5)(b) is that it will also be an offence under domestic law if the prohibited acts in subs (1) or (2) are conducted by or against a person habitually resident in England and Wales, but take place in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Private Prosecution Time for EDS

Other examples of HBV

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (“MSbP”)

As an additional issue which is prevalent among Asian Parents is MSbP.

to be continued…

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Also in this series

The majority of police forces’ failure to tackle “honour”-based violence is punishing victims