Anyone know what the Defence for the Lee Rigby murder trial is?

I understsand there needs to be a trial.

But how is it anymore than a formality?

I mean they ran over and beheaded a guy in broad day light, infront of Dozens of witness with Camera phones under CCTV and stood there to the police arived waveing a bloody knife around claiming to the public and police how they did it.

They cant be more guilty unless they commited the murder in front of the jury.

They pleaded not guilty what the hell is the defence? What on earth can there barrister do?

Surely the trial could have been wraped up in day.


PS if mods want to move this its fine as not sure where this should have gone, put it in social issues as its a court case and what down to relgius tensions.

reply to post by crazyewok


That's a good question. In the United States, the defense would be a no-brainer. Not Guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect....if a plea deal wasn't scored in advance, of course. (I've come to HATE prosecutors that live by the plea deal..but we have a nation full of them).

What is the equivalent in England? There has to be some similar cover for the true insane, right?

Their defence will probably try to argue that they are soldiers of Allah's army and therefore it was a battlefield killing.

Of course they are as guilty as sin, but whilst the trial is ongoing and being reported upon, it's a fantastic recruitment tool for the extremists. Also, the cost of the trial will run highly, which kind of hits at the system somewhat.

a big boy made me do it would be as good defence as not guilty they are throwing in the ring off to gitmo with them .

give them some justise and a good wash 300 times a day

As others have said it will most probably be something along the lines of "we are soldiers of Allah defending the Islamic people form the evil of the west, Lee Rigby was one of their evil soldiers and as such this was a battle field killing". An other possibility is that they will argue that UK Law does not apply to them and the only law they recognize is Allah's law.

They already know they are guilty in the eyes of the UK courts, if they had their way they would have both died that day as they tried to have a go at the armed cops.

The only reason they are mounting a defense is for ideological reasons (ie. they really do believe UK law is not applicable to them) and also it is mostly about propaganda. If they plead guilty this whole thing would be quite quick, by claiming they are not guilty they put the media attention on them "look what we done for the cause of Islam" kind of crap for the next few weeks. They get to twist the knife a little more and make us go through the horror of that day again (at least for his family).

It does however seem very strange at first glance at them claiming they are not guilty of the crimes which they have been charged under considering that they admitted it on a camera at the time the crime was committed.

Just wait until the defense ask's the very uncomfortable question -
"And when was it exactly that you were approached by MI5 and ask to work for them....."

andy1972
Just wait until the defense ask's the very uncomfortable question -
"And when was it exactly that you were approached by MI5 and ask to work for them....."

Or when people start asking about the SAS capturing one of them in Kenya a year before him and his mate started chopping up a British squadie in England.

Prosecution ''You say you are not guilty, can you explain why?''

Killers "we are soldiers of Allah defending the Islamic people form the evil of the west, Lee Rigby was one of their evil soldiers and as such this was a battle field killing"

Prosecution ''So you do admit to killing Lee Rigby''

Killers ''Yes''

Prosecution ''No further questions''

Is How it should have happened.

Wrabbit2000


What is the equivalent in England? There has to be some similar cover for the true insane, right?

Yes but you have to go through some intese psychological evalutaions. As explained to me by a freind in law you have to prove that you did not know right from wrong at the time.

These guys certainly were coherant and knew what they were doing. The fact it was planned and cordianted means a barrister worth his law degree wouldnt even try it.

Cobaltic1978
Their defence will probably try to argue that they are soldiers of Allah's army and therefore it was a battlefield killing.

IF anything that will just make there sentance worse as they could be detained as POW's or enemy combatents and held indeffinatly.

crazyewok

Cobaltic1978
Their defence will probably try to argue that they are soldiers of Allah's army and therefore it was a battlefield killing.

IF anything that will just make there sentance worse as they could be detained as POW's or enemy combatents and held indeffinatly.

I would suggest that as they were not in uniform, they should be tried as spies. The U.K law allows for spies to be executed doesn't it?

Cobaltic1978
[The U.K law allows for spies to be executed doesn't it?

No all capital punishments were abolsihed in 2001 under EU law.

Only exceptions I think is if a member EU state is at war and its a court martial.


Anyway they would LOVE a death sentance, remember the whole matyerism and 74 virgins deal.

They pleaded 'not guilty' for two reasons;

1. More media attention.

2. In their eyes they were acting on behalf of their god, therefore any admission of guilt on their behalf would also be an admission that their god is guilty.

They did murder Mr Rigby, but there is no guilt.

LiveForever8


2. In their eyes they were acting on behalf of their god, therefore any admission of guilt on their behalf would also be an admission that their god is guilty.

They did murder Mr Rigby, but there is no guilt.

But that has no basis under UK law, it not a defence at all. I just cant see any Barrister who values his career running with such a insane defence.

reply to post by crazyewok


Which is why they will be found guilty.

I'm sure propaganda is their main motive - the case is a platform for them and no doubt they will milk the situation for all it's worth. Maybe they will try to plead guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Whatever their motive, like every defendant they have the right to enter a not guilty plea and to receive a fair trial.

Barristers are instructed by solicitors and generally take cases on a 'taxi rank' basis (this is referred to by John Mortimer in his Rumpole of the Bailey books, in which the main character describes himself as an old cab plying for hire). It's their job to get the best outcome for their clients, whoever they are: their careers do not suffer on the basis of who they defend.