1-20 of 156 results for subject:Iraq
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.279 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Iraq
- We searched for
- subject_t:Iraq OR subject_ses:11044
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
How many British jihadists (a) have been prosecuted and (b) are being considered for prosecution since returning from Syria or Iraq.
How many British jihadists (a) have been prosecuted and (b) are being considered for prosecution since returning from Syria or Iraq.
There is no specific offence related to returnees from Syria or Iraq as they can be prosecuted for a range of offences, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 97 people were charged with a terrorism-related offence in the year ending September this year, and as of last month 30 have been prosecuted and found guilty and a further 65 are awaiting prosecution.
There is no specific offence related to returnees from Syria or Iraq as they can be prosecuted for a range of offences, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 97 people were charged with a terrorism-related offence in the year ending September this year, and as of last month 30 have been prosecuted and found guilty and a further 65 are awaiting prosecution.
There is no specific offence related to returnees from Syria or Iraq as they can be prosecuted for a range of offences, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 97 people were charged with a terrorism-related offence in the year ending September this year, and as of last month 30 have been prosecuted and found guilty and a further 65 are awaiting prosecution.
How many British jihadists (a) have been prosecuted and (b) are being considered for prosecution since returning from Syria or Iraq.
British jihadists who go abroad to fight Her Majesty’s armed forces are traitors and should be prosecuted for treason. My understanding is that the reason why they are not is that an official declaration of war has not been made against ISIS. Given that, should we not take away the nationality of these people so that they are not allowed back into the country in the first place, and if they are allowed back in, should not all of them be prosecuted and awarded the maximum sentences?
British jihadists who go abroad to fight Her Majesty’s armed forces are traitors and should be prosecuted for treason. My understanding is that the reason why they are not is that an official declaration of war has not been made against ISIS. Given that, should we not take away the nationality of these people so that they are not allowed back into the country in the first place, and if they are allowed back in, should not all of them be prosecuted and awarded the maximum sentences?
We do prosecute wherever we can, and, of course, the appropriate place for some of these individuals to be brought to justice is the countries where their crimes are committed. On allowing them back into this country, as my hon. Friend may know, this country, as other countries, has an international law obligation to take back its own citizens. Where people have dual citizenship, it is feasible to take away their citizenship, and the Government do on occasion pursue the opportunity to do so, but we cannot leave people without a state.
We do prosecute wherever we can, and, of course, the appropriate place for some of these individuals to be brought to justice is the countries where their crimes are committed. On allowing them back into this country, as my hon. Friend may know, this country, as other countries, has an international law obligation to take back its own citizens. Where people have dual citizenship, it is feasible to take away their citizenship, and the Government do on occasion pursue the opportunity to do so, but we cannot leave people without a state.
We do prosecute wherever we can, and, of course, the appropriate place for some of these individuals to be brought to justice is the countries where their crimes are committed. On allowing them back into this country, as my hon. Friend may know, this country, as other countries, has an international law obligation to take back its own citizens. Where people have dual citizenship, it is feasible to take away their citizenship, and the Government do on occasion pursue the opportunity to do so, but we cannot leave people without a state.
British jihadists who go abroad to fight Her Majesty’s armed forces are traitors and should be prosecuted for treason. My understanding is that the reason why they are not is that an official declaration of war has not been made against ISIS. Given that, should we not take away the nationality of these people so that they are not allowed back into the country in the first place, and if they are allowed back in, should not all of them be prosecuted and awarded the maximum sentences?
The Secretary of State for Defence has suggested that all terrorists should be killed. Is it not important that the UK is seen as upholding the Geneva convention?
The Secretary of State for Defence has suggested that all terrorists should be killed. Is it not important that the UK is seen as upholding the Geneva convention?
That certainly is important. What my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was saying, echoing his predecessor, was that those who choose to fight with Daesh put themselves at risk, but let me make the legal position clear: every country, including this one, is entitled to defend itself from acts of terrorism, and where an attack is either present or imminent, and where it is necessary or proportionate to do so, this country can, and on occasion will, use force, including lethal force, to defend ourselves.
That certainly is important. What my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was saying, echoing his predecessor, was that those who choose to fight with Daesh put themselves at risk, but let me make the legal position clear: every country, including this one, is entitled to defend itself from acts of terrorism, and where an attack is either present or imminent, and where it is necessary or proportionate to do so, this country can, and on occasion will, use force, including lethal force, to defend ourselves.
That certainly is important. What my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was saying, echoing his predecessor, was that those who choose to fight with Daesh put themselves at risk, but let me make the legal position clear: every country, including this one, is entitled to defend itself from acts of terrorism, and where an attack is either present or imminent, and where it is necessary or proportionate to do so, this country can, and on occasion will, use force, including lethal force, to defend ourselves.
The Secretary of State for Defence has suggested that all terrorists should be killed. Is it not important that the UK is seen as upholding the Geneva convention?
UK nationals can be prosecuted in our domestic courts for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that have taken place abroad. My hon. Friend will know that the UK Government are also working with other Governments to explore international legal mechanisms whereby Daesh can be held to account for its crimes.
UK nationals can be prosecuted in our domestic courts for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that have taken place abroad. My hon. Friend will know that the UK Government are also working with other Governments to explore international legal mechanisms whereby Daesh can be held to account for its crimes.
How the Government collects evidence for use in its investigations into alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Syria and Iraq.
It appears that no steps are currently being taken by the International Criminal Court to pursue prosecutions for crimes against humanity or genocide in Syria and Iraq, despite a substantial vote in this House advocating such action. Is the UK taking any steps to use its own legal competences to prosecute UK nationals who might be committing such crimes in those countries?
It appears that no steps are currently being taken by the International Criminal Court to pursue prosecutions for crimes against humanity or genocide in Syria and Iraq, despite a substantial vote in this House advocating such action. Is the UK taking any steps to use its own legal competences to prosecute UK nationals who might be committing such crimes in those countries?
My hon. Friend will know that the UK Government sought to pursue a route whereby the International Criminal Court would consider offences of this type committed in Iraq and Syria, but that our approach was vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese, so there has been no lack of effort on the part of the United Kingdom. In relation to domestic law, we will certainly pursue those offences as and where we can. She will also recognise that the primary practical difficulty is that of obtaining the necessary evidence, and we are working at international level to determine how evidence can be properly collected and retained in theatre so that it can be used for prosecutions when the time comes.
My hon. Friend will know that the UK Government sought to pursue a route whereby the International Criminal Court would consider offences of this type committed in Iraq and Syria, but that our approach was vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese, so there has been no lack of effort on the part of the United Kingdom. In relation to domestic law, we will certainly pursue those offences as and where we can. She will also recognise that the primary practical difficulty is that of obtaining the necessary evidence, and we are working at international level to determine how evidence can be properly collected and retained in theatre so that it can be used for prosecutions when the time comes.
My hon. Friend will know that the UK Government sought to pursue a route whereby the International Criminal Court would consider offences of this type committed in Iraq and Syria, but that our approach was vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese, so there has been no lack of effort on the part of the United Kingdom. In relation to domestic law, we will certainly pursue those offences as and where we can. She will also recognise that the primary practical difficulty is that of obtaining the necessary evidence, and we are working at international level to determine how evidence can be properly collected and retained in theatre so that it can be used for prosecutions when the time comes.
It appears that no steps are currently being taken by the International Criminal Court to pursue prosecutions for crimes against humanity or genocide in Syria and Iraq, despite a substantial vote in this House advocating such action. Is the UK taking any steps to use its own legal competences to prosecute UK nationals who might be committing such crimes in those countries?
How the Government collects evidence for use in its investigations into alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Syria and Iraq.
How the Government collects evidence for use in its investigations into alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Syria and Iraq.
UK nationals can be prosecuted in our domestic courts for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that have taken place abroad. My hon. Friend will know that the UK Government are also working with other Governments to explore international legal mechanisms whereby Daesh can be held to account for its crimes.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not prosecuted the reported 350 Jihadis who have returned to the UK and are suspected of having fought in Syria or Iraq.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not prosecuted the reported 350 Jihadis who have returned to the UK and are suspected of having fought in Syria or Iraq.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to prosecute jihadis who have fought with ISIS and return to the United Kingdom; and if not, why not.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to prosecute jihadis who have fought with ISIS and return to the United Kingdom; and if not, why not.
If there is evidence that people are going to Syria to engage in terrorist activity they can be arrested and prosecuted. Each case is considered individually in accordance with the rules of the applicable criminal law jurisdiction. In England and Wales if the police refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), they consider whether the test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is met; that is whether there is sufficient evidence of any offence, and if so, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. A similar public interest approach is taken by the office of the Lord Advocate, the sole prosecuting authority for Scotland.
Whether an individual is arrested or prosecuted for a terrorism offence will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and is an operational decision for the police and responsible prosecuting authority. Safeguards are built in to our legislation and we rely on the professionals involved to make sure that prosecutions are pursued in appropriate cases. Whether any specific act falls within the definition of ‘terrorism’ and whether any individuals or groups have committed an offence will always depend on all facts and circumstances of the case. Depending on the specific circumstances, anyone who becomes involved with fighting overseas may be prosecuted under the applicable law on their return.
A very wide range of offences already exists on the statute books that can be used to prosecute such individuals and to manage the risk they may pose on return, including in the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 which provide extra-territorial jurisdiction in relation to certain activities. In particular, where there is evidence that individuals are planning, promoting, funding, facilitating or participating in terrorist activities overseas - including involvement in fighting for terrorist groups - the relevant authorities will seek to prosecute them, before they go or on their return.
The Information Commissioner has today published an enforcement notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to requests for information relating to the advice given on the legality of military intervention in Iraq in 2003. The Cabinet Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers have issued...
The Information Commissioner has today published an enforcement notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to requests for information relating to the advice given on the legality of military intervention in Iraq in 2003. The Cabinet Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers have issued...
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord gave extremely good answers to many of my questions, but he did not say how many servicemen were being investigated.
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord gave extremely good answers to many of my questions, but he did not say how many servicemen were being investigated.
My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right; I apologise for that. The statistics are these. More than 80,000 members of the British Armed Forces have served in Iraq. There have been 184 investigations since the start of operations in Iraq—that covers all types of incidents—100 of those relate to incidents where British forces...
My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right; I apologise for that. The statistics are these. More than 80,000 members of the British Armed Forces have served in Iraq. There have been 184 investigations since the start of operations in Iraq—that covers all types of incidents—100 of those relate to incidents where British forces...
My Lords, I declare an interest as having represented paratroopers in a case last October and being currently engaged in another court martial. I also express on behalf of these Benches our relief that the ordeal that the soldiers have undergone over a very lengthy period has now come to an end....
My Lords, I declare an interest as having represented paratroopers in a case last October and being currently engaged in another court martial. I also express on behalf of these Benches our relief that the ordeal that the soldiers have undergone over a very lengthy period has now come to an end....
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for coming to the House with this important Statement. We on these Benches are relieved to know that these soldiers will not be facing charges. But we must not forget that a British soldier died in tragic circumstances, and our thoughts...
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for coming to the House with this important Statement. We on these Benches are relieved to know that these soldiers will not be facing charges. But we must not forget that a British soldier died in tragic circumstances, and our thoughts...
My Lords, the material has become public knowledge, because it was disclosed during a legal action by the Ministry of Defence, although it was never intended to be disclosed. I said that there was evidence that could appear to show a concerted decision by the chain of command to prevent a...
My Lords, the material has become public knowledge, because it was disclosed during a legal action by the Ministry of Defence, although it was never intended to be disclosed. I said that there was evidence that could appear to show a concerted decision by the chain of command to prevent a...