Friday, 29 January 2016

Is Jeremy Wright QC MP a murderer in Scots Law and English Law? Letter of 25th November 2015 to Police Scotland and the National Crime Agency

On 25th November 2015 I wrote to Police Scotland and the National Crime Agency reporting my suspicion that Jeremy Wright QC MP, the Attorney General of England and Wales, had committed the common law offence of murder with respect to the killing on 21st August 2015 of Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and an unnamed third person.

Here is the text of the letter:



25th November 2015

To:
Keith Bristow, Chief Executive, National Crime Agency
Chief Constable Sir Stephen House, Police Scotland
[By email]

Gentlemen,
Suspected serious crimes by Jeremy Wright MP and others
  1. Murder of Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and another on 21st August 2015
  2. “Genocide” contrary to s51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and s1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001
  3. Misconduct in public office by Jeremy Wright MP – concealment of British Military Terrorism etc
  4. Terrorism offences by Jeremy Wright MP
URGENT need to prevent further similar crimes
Misconduct in public office by Robert Buckland MP
I write to report to you in your respective roles as Chief Executive of the National Crime Agency and Chief Constable of Police Scotland suspected serious crimes by Attorney General Jeremy Wright MP and Solicitor General Robert Buckland MP.
By a quirk of law the suspected murder and suspected “genocide” offences by Mr. Wright et al are criminal offences in both English Law and Scots Law, hence this unusual manner of reporting the suspected crimes.
The most URGENT aspect of the matters to which I wish to draw your joint attention is prevention of further criminal acts of unlawful klling, “genocide” or terrorism.
The matters which fall to be carefully considered by you are complex.
An unprecedented situation
To the best of my knowledge it is unprecedented for law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom to be asked to investigate a serving Attorney General and Solicitor General of England and Wales for suspected serious criminal offences.
I believe that your duty as law enforcement officers of the Crown is clear.
The suspected crimes by Jeremy Wright MP and Robert Buckland MP should be honestly, diligently and fairly investigated in accordance with Law notwithstanding any political issues that may apply.
Relevance of the Coronation Oath
In 1953 in her Coronation Oath the Sovereign made a commitment to govern in accordance with Law.
It seems to me that the Queen is by that Oath personally bound by Law as it stood in 1953 and by Law at every point of time thereafter.
Conceptually, “Her Majesty’s Government” draws its authority from the Queen.
Given that the Sovereign has bound herself to govern in accordance with Law, any body which draws its authority from the Sovereign is, so it seems to me, similarly bound to act in accordance with Law.
In other words, HM Government is routinely bound by Law, whether or not it is explicitly stated in any Act that the Crown is so bound.
That line of argument is, in my view, important in correctly interpreting the applicability of the Terrorism Act 2000, considered later in this letter.
The interaction of domestic Law and International Law – principles
For an action to be lawful it seems to me that it requires, in the context of the matters where International Law might apply, to be lawful in both domestic Law and International Law.
The interaction of domestic Law and International Law – in practice
In 2003 the advice given by the Attorney General of the time, Lord Goldsmith was that the proposed Iraq War was lawful in both domestic Law and in International Law.
The Attorney General in 2003 recognised the need to comply with both domestic Law and International Law.
However, with respect to the suspected murder of Reyaad Khan et al on 21st August 2015 no mention of compliance with domestic Law is made by the Prime Minister in his statement of 7th September 2015 to the House of Commons.
There is no indication that domestic Law was considered by Jeremy Wright in his role as Attorney General.
“Terrorism” in UK Law
In UK Law “terrorism” is defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
For the purposes of this letter I can restate the meaning of Section 1 as it applies to the matters in hand as follows:
“Where firearms and/or explosives are used, an act anywhere in the world is terrorism if it results in serious injury and/or death and is carried out for a political purpose”.
Of course, it is the less easily understood definition in Statute, which requires to be applied by you  during assessment and investigation of the matters raised in this letter.
When restated as above it is clear that a necessary implication of s1 of the Act is that British military action in the Middle East is, in fact, British Military Terrorism.
Similar straightforward analysis of the meaning of s1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 leads to the conclusion that United States Military Terrorism and French Military Terrorism also exist.
The relevance of such an analysis of the Terrorism Act 2000 will become clear later with respect to the suspected misconduct in public office by Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland.
Murder of Reyaad Khan and others on 21st August 2015 by Jeremy Wright MP and others
On 21st August 2015 Reyaad Khan, a British citizen, was premeditatedly killed by the Royal Air Force.
In a statement to the House of Commons on 7th September 2015, the Prime Minister made it clear that advice from the Attorney General was an essential prerequisite for the air strike which killed Reyaad Khan, Ruhul Amin and an unnamed third victim.
Unlawful killing of a British Citizen abroad is triable under English Law and under Scots Law:
  1. For English Law see s9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  2. For Scots Law see s11 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
It seems to me that the role of the Attorney General was pivotal in the unlawful killing of Reyaad Khan, and by virtue of the respective concepts of “joint enterprise” (English Law) and “art and part” (Scots Law). a charge of murder is correct.
Alternative charges of manslaughter (English Law) or culpable homicide (Scots Law) are available.
Such alternative charges seem to me to underestimate Mr. Wright’s role in the unlawful killing of Reyaad Khan and others.
“Genocide” by Jeremy Wright and others contrary to s51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and s1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001
Since September 2014 it has been UK Government policy to destroy the religious group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
As part of the implementation of that policy members of ISIL have been killed. The premeditated killing of Reyaad Khan is a case in point.
It might be objected that ISIL is not a “religious group” in view, for example, of its violence. I would point out that since the 7th Century violence has intermittently been evident in subsets of Islam in various geographic areas. That is not to deny the existence of more pacifist strains of Islam.
It is an offence in English Law contrary to s51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to kill members of a religious group in pursuance of a policy of destroying that group.
A similar offence in Scots Law is expressed in s1 of the Internationla Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.
It is similarly an offence contrary to International Law. I refer you to Article 6 of the Rome Statute for further information.
It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons on 7th September 2015 that Mr. Wright played a role in the targeted killing of at least one member of ISIL.
Hence, I conclude that by virtue of joint enterprise (English Law) or “art and part” (Scottish Law) that Jeremy Wright MP is party to “genocide” as defined in Article 6 of the Rome Statute.
I have expressed the suspected crimes by Jeremy Wright MP in terms of “genocide”.
An alternative charge relating to conduct ancillary to genocide is also available, both in English Law and Scots Law.
Misconduct in public office by Jeremy Wright MP
On 25th September 2014 I wrote to Jeremy Wright, Attorney General, and Robert Buckland MP, Solicitor General, expressing serious concern that the proposed military action in Iraq was “terrorism” in UK Law.
See the enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland.
Mr. Wright concealed from Parliament and the British Public that acts of terrorism (in the meaning of s1 Terrorism Act 2000) were inevitable with respect to the proposed military action in Iraq.
The terrorism which Mr. Wright dishonestly concealed included British Military Terrorism and US Military Terrorism.
The foregoing indicates why I believe that Mr. Wright misconducted himself with respect to the concealment of inter alia British Military Terrorism.
However, it also seems to me that Mr. Wright may have misconducted himself with respect to the premeditated killing of Reyaad Khan.
If Mr. Wright failed to consider the issue of how domestic Law might apply to the premeditated killing of Reyaad Khan he failed to act in accordance with what might reasonably be expected of a oompetent Attorney General  in so spectacular a fashion as to constitute misconduct in public office.
Alternatively, if Mr. Wright was aware that the killing of Reyaad Khan might be unlawful in domestic Law and he acquiesced in the process of the kangaroo court that decided to kill Mr. Khan then the failure on the part of Mr. Wright is one of integrity.
The failure of Mr. Wright and/or the Prime Minister to inform Parliament and the British Public that the killing of Reyaad Khan was unlawful seems to me to be further reason to consider that Mr. Wright misconducted himself in public office.
Terrorism offences by Jeremy Wright MP
British military action against ISIL meets the definition of terrorism set out in s1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
As indicated earlier, the effect of the Coronation Oath of 1953 is to bind the Sovereign and hence H.M. Government with respect to Law.
I conclude that British military action against ISIL is “terrorism” and that multiple terrorism-related offences have been committed by Jeremy Wright MP and many others.
For example, the Prime Minister’s statement of 7th September 2015 makes it clear that Mr. Wright participated in the meeting(s) which decided to kill Reyaad Khan.
That meeting in my view prepared for a terrorist act, viz the killing of Reyaad Khan. I conclude that Mr. Wright inter alia committed an offence contrary to Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
Given that Mr. Wright’s participation was, in my assessment, definitive in deciding whether the terrorist act of killing Mr. Khan was carried out or not, it seems to me that Mr. Wright also committed an offence contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Misconduct in public office by Robert Buckland MP
Mr. Buckland was a recipient of my letter of 25th September 2014 which was addressed jointly to Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland.
Mr. Buckland was, in my estimation, party to the deceiving of Parliament and the British Public by the Prime Minister with respect to the proposed military action in Iraq, specifically British Military Terrorism and US Military Terrorism were concealed.
Distribution
This letter is a public document.
I am copying this letter to Jeremy Wright MP, Attorney General. I do so in order that he may have a further opportunity carefully to consider the concerns that I express in this letter.
I am also copying this letter to David Anderson QC, the Government’s Independent (sic) Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for his information and consideration, not least in the context of my letter to him dated 18th November 2015.
Which Police Force should investigate?
The suspected murder and genocide by Mr. Wright can, by quirk of Law, be assessed under either Scots Law or English Law.
Similarly, in my understanding, Mr. Wright’s suspected offences contrary to Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can be investigated in either jurisdiction, but investigation under English Law might be a better fit.
The suspected misconduct in public office by Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland are, in my estimation, matters for English Law.
Given that Police Scotland are already assessing related matters, as they apply to David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP, it may be expedient for the National Crime Agency to ask Police Scotland to investigate on behalf of the National Crime Agency the suspected crimes by Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland contrary to English Law.
The decision as to which Police force investigates the suspected crimes of Mr. Wright and Mr. Buckland is open to discretion.
The decision as to whether or not to investigate lacks any such discretionary element in my view.
Actions requested of you
I ask that each addressee promptly acknowledges receipt of this letter.
I also ask that URGENT action is taken to avoid any continuation and/or repetition of the following suspected crimes:
  1. Unlawful killing
  2. “Genocide” contrary to s51 International Criminal Court Act 2001 and/or s1 International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001
  3. Offences contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000 as applicable to British Military Terrorism and United States Military Terrorism.
Thus the urgent need to prevent future terrorism in the course of British Military Terrorism and United States Terrorism goes far beyond Mr. Wright’s suspected crimes.
I also ask that each of the suspected crimes listed in the heading of this letter are fully and honestly assessed and investigated.

Yours sincerely


(Dr) Andrew Watt
Cc:
Jeremy Wright MP, Attorney General
David Anderson QC, Independent (sic) Review of Terrorism Legislation
Enc.
Letter of 25th September 2015 to Jeremy Wright MP, Attorney General and Robert Buckland MP, Solicitor General, regarding proposed British Military Terrorism in Iraq

No comments:

Post a Comment