What should happen about the hunger strikers?

[noblegiraffe]

There are a group of people currently on remand in prison awaiting trial for criminal activities taken in support of the (currently) proscribed terrorist group Palestine Action. Some of them have gone on hunger strike and are suffering health impacts and some have been hospitalised.

Their demands appear to be:
to be released on bail
for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed as a terrorist group
for the UK to stop selling arms to Israel

I'm seeing various MPs writing earnest letters to David Lammy as Justice Secretary, saying that he must meet with them urgently to discuss their demands.

And then what?

It should go without saying that I really don't want people to die, and I'm sure that their families must be frantic, but what is actually expected to happen here? The proscription of Palestine Action is being appealed in the courts and I don't think people threatening to kill themselves should impact the democratic process.

Being released on bail? While I agree that it is shocking that they have been held in prison for 2 years while awaiting trial, because the justice system should work faster than that, they are active members of a currently proscribed terrorist organisation. At least one of the hunger strikers took part in the attack on Elbit where a female police officer had her back broken by one of the activists who attacked her with a sledgehammer while she lay on the ground. There's plenty of video footage of this, and I don't think the hunger strikers have condemned it. If they did get bail by threatening to kill themselves, surely everyone would then give it a go?

So what should happen?

So why do these people deserve special treatment above and beyond everyone else who is sitting in the same queue?

What is striking me is that most posters in this thread seem to want these guys dead. Zero compassion for them, or for that matter for anyone else in jail.

Finding this too upsetting to discuss, so bye.

You don’t seem to have compassion for others?

I don't want them to die.

I want them to start eating again.

I can't see how that can happen via their demands being met. So someone needs to convince them that if they don't want to die, they need to eat.

awww booo, poor little over privileged/ uneconomically involved lambs.. how very dare people and the judiciary not accept that this group are super special so can break the law. (And people’s backs) and be absolutely untouchable….

What's striking to me is anyone being daft enough to think it was just daubing a bit of paint on planes.

Talk about why no bail for sure.

Well that's one of their demands, isn't it? So I wasn't being misleading and you should withdraw your accusation.

No one WANTS them dead. I'd suggest most people see this for what it is - attention seeking behaviour and attempts to manipulate people.

If they manage to cause themselves damage in the process, that's entirely their own choice. It is entirely preventable by not deliberately harming themselves.

No problem, I withdraw that accusation, partially.

Because one of the demands is that they get bail. I see nothing about the MP's saying their other damands be met. Although I can certainly see Corbyn and Sultana being against the Israeli defence firm.

I have been saying throughout this thread that I think it is wrong to hold someone on bail for potentially longer than their sentence might be. Another poster has explained their trial might be as far out as 2027. I believe their first court appearance is marked in for May next year.

The case seems simple enough to me. Did group A break into a factory and attack a police officer with a sledge hammer. Did group B vandalise a plane ?

So get them into a court. Innocent till guilty.

I see nothing about the MP's saying their other damands be met.

I posted links. You seem to think that your inability to access Twitter means they don’t exist.

Here is Corbyn’s letter clearly arguing in favour of their demands.

I have been saying throughout this thread that I think it is wrong to hold someone on bail for potentially longer than their sentence might be.

No one is saying that the court backlog isn’t a problem. No idea how you know in advance what their sentence might be. Do you think someone shouldn’t be held on remand if they present a flight risk or a reoffending risk? Because that seems fairly important when deciding bail.

Did you read my post above re Corbyn and Sultana ?

So tell me, do you think its OK to hold someone on remand for potentially 2 years ? Especially in an apparently open and shut case ?

And let me spin it around a little bit. Does the Police woman who was attacked not deserve to see a swift conclusion?

It's not as if this is going to be a complex forensics case.

You only partially withdrew your accusation against me, even though I provided evidence of what I said. You've been pretty rude.

I've repeatedly said, including in my OP, that 2 years on remand is shocking, and justice should work faster than that. People have presented reasons why the wait is so long.

That doesn't mean that we can just release people while they wait though, if they present a risk of reoffending, or a risk of absconding. You haven't addressed the reasons why some people are refused bail.

"That doesn't mean that we can just release people while they wait though, if they present a risk of reoffending, or a risk of absconding. You haven't addressed the reasons why some people are refused bail."

Is that not what the MPs are asking the ministers ?

Oh well, never mind.

Don’t you read your own posts?

You posted a quote from the Green Party which said “this : It is irrelevant whether or not we agree with their tactics. We join with Mothin Ali, Zack Polanski, Apsana Begum, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana and every other progressive activist who calls for these prisoners of conscience to be immediately released on bail.”

Please remember we have SEPARATION OF POWERS in the UK.

MPs have no right to demand the judiciary answer for their decisions, nor do they have the right to demand they change them.

The reasons for refusing bail would’ve been given at the hearing.

This interference by rogue MPs in the judicial process is every bit as worrying as removing the right to trial by jury. It’s no different, but of course it’s fine because the Palestine lot are doing it.

Please remember we are supposed to have SEPARATION OF POWERS in the UK.

Fixed that for you.

I was going to edit it myself after but didn’t so thanks! Yes, ‘supposed to have…’ is more accurate.

Parliament make the laws that the courts have to follow.

I have mentioned this up thread.

We have seen this with Gender Critical arrests. It's the same with all laws, Parliament make them.

Yes but the courts interpret them and Parliament are not supposed to interfere in the decision making of the judiciary.

Once the Bill is passed it is up to the judiciary to apply it and MPs ‘demanding’ the release of validly and legally remanded defendants is a shocker.

And that is exactly what I have said up thread. I get what you are saying re the MP's demanding bail, but the fact is the Justice Minister and home sec do have a bit of influence.

If the crown prosecutors ask for remand, that instruction could very well be from Government. Government do instruct the crown prosecutors.

No they do not.

The Supreme Court are appointed by the King government (the executive for fans of the separation of powers).

It's supposed to be non partisan, but the government have to approve (rather than parliament).

It's not quite as naked gameable as the US system, but it's still not independent of the other arms of the state.

If nothing else, the government has to fund the courts. And we know how that has worked out.