Account of court proceedings under Terrorism Act 2000
The Crimson Repat | 16.06.2003 10:42 | Terror War
Below is an account of court proceedings under the Terrorism Act 2000 against six people, most of them from Turkey, who have been charged with supporting the DHKP-C, a group proscribed under the Act. The six were arrested in December last year during the wave of arrests of alleged "terrorists" which preceded the war against Iraq.
The case against the six people who were arrested and charged under anti-terror legislation in December last year for supporting the struggle for democracy in Turkey continued at Kingston Crown Court on 11th June.
Anyone who has been following this case will know
that within the last six months there have been very few
developments. The case has largely been characterised by bureaucratic incompetence, police harassment of the Turkish community and the family members of the accused and a total indifference and lack of sensitivity to the reality of Turkey.
Finally this week the defendants were given the chance after nearly seven months to put in a plea. The indictments put to them by the court were the following:
Count 1
Belonging to a proscribed organisation, contrary to
Section 11(1) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th
December 2002 that the defendants belonged to, or professed to belong to a proscribed organisation, namely the DHKP-C
(Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). This charge applies to all six.
Count 2
Facilitating the retention or control by or behalf
of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th
December 2002 that one of the accused entered into or were
otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by keeping accounts from the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and donations and giving instructions for the use of such monies for the purposes of the DHKP-C. (Please note that the magazines mentioned are entirely legal and available for purchase throughout Turkey and Europe and are in fact registered with the Republic of Turkey and have to pay tax to it.)
Count 3
Facilitating the retention or control by on behalf
of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th
December 2002 that the accused entered into or were otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by being in involved in the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and the receipt and distribution of funds there from for the purposes of the DHKP-C.
This charge applies to the remaining five of the six.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to all the indictments.
The prosecution applied for a trial date for January
2004, which was opposed by the defence who asked for the date to be set for November of this year. The judge agreed and set a provisional date of 24th November.
The prosecution made it known that in February of this year the police wrote to the governments of Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Bulgaria asking for information in the investigation of this case. To date the British authorities have only received half of the documents that they are supposed to receive from Turkey and the courts in Belgium and the Netherlands have only just given their intelligence agencies the go ahead to proceed with the request from Britain. The government of Bulgaria has only just replied to the Home Office and a delegation of British investigating officers is travelling to Germany next week.
Even though the judge agreed to set a provisional
date for the start of the trial it is likely that it will be adjourned until January of next year because the prosecution will seek an adjournment to prepare the paperwork they are to receive from the foreign
jurisdictions.
They claim that they will need more time to translate the documents and to screen it before it can be presented in public, they also say they will need to make several trips to these countries as well.
They also hinted at the possibility of foreign witnesses attending the trial.
The defence objected to the timescale that the
prosecution is working to by asserting that although the defendants were arrested in December of last year they had been under investigation for much longer. Most of them had been arrested and then released on previous occasions and some of them had also had their homes raided and searched as well, so the police have had ample time to prepare a case against them. Whilst the prosecution disagreed with this they did admit that the defendants had been under nvestigation for the last two years.
One of the defendants still has to sign on at a
police station and has been subjected to abuse from the police officers on duty and made to wait up to three hours on some occasions. An attempt to change this bail condition on those grounds was unsuccessful.
The judge ordered the prosecution to provide the
defence with a case summary, which they still have not done, by early July.
The defendants are next in court on 25th July for a
directions hearing. All the defendants still remain out on bail.
Anyone who has been following this case will know
that within the last six months there have been very few
developments. The case has largely been characterised by bureaucratic incompetence, police harassment of the Turkish community and the family members of the accused and a total indifference and lack of sensitivity to the reality of Turkey.
Finally this week the defendants were given the chance after nearly seven months to put in a plea. The indictments put to them by the court were the following:
Count 1
Belonging to a proscribed organisation, contrary to
Section 11(1) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th
December 2002 that the defendants belonged to, or professed to belong to a proscribed organisation, namely the DHKP-C
(Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). This charge applies to all six.
Count 2
Facilitating the retention or control by or behalf
of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th
December 2002 that one of the accused entered into or were
otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by keeping accounts from the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and donations and giving instructions for the use of such monies for the purposes of the DHKP-C. (Please note that the magazines mentioned are entirely legal and available for purchase throughout Turkey and Europe and are in fact registered with the Republic of Turkey and have to pay tax to it.)
Count 3
Facilitating the retention or control by on behalf
of another person of terrorist property, contrary to Section 18(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is alleged that between 28th March 2001 and 12th
December 2002 that the accused entered into or were otherwise concerned in an arrangement which facilitated the retention or control by or behalf of another person of terrorist property by being in involved in the sale of Vatan and Ekmek ve Adalet magazines and the receipt and distribution of funds there from for the purposes of the DHKP-C.
This charge applies to the remaining five of the six.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to all the indictments.
The prosecution applied for a trial date for January
2004, which was opposed by the defence who asked for the date to be set for November of this year. The judge agreed and set a provisional date of 24th November.
The prosecution made it known that in February of this year the police wrote to the governments of Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Bulgaria asking for information in the investigation of this case. To date the British authorities have only received half of the documents that they are supposed to receive from Turkey and the courts in Belgium and the Netherlands have only just given their intelligence agencies the go ahead to proceed with the request from Britain. The government of Bulgaria has only just replied to the Home Office and a delegation of British investigating officers is travelling to Germany next week.
Even though the judge agreed to set a provisional
date for the start of the trial it is likely that it will be adjourned until January of next year because the prosecution will seek an adjournment to prepare the paperwork they are to receive from the foreign
jurisdictions.
They claim that they will need more time to translate the documents and to screen it before it can be presented in public, they also say they will need to make several trips to these countries as well.
They also hinted at the possibility of foreign witnesses attending the trial.
The defence objected to the timescale that the
prosecution is working to by asserting that although the defendants were arrested in December of last year they had been under investigation for much longer. Most of them had been arrested and then released on previous occasions and some of them had also had their homes raided and searched as well, so the police have had ample time to prepare a case against them. Whilst the prosecution disagreed with this they did admit that the defendants had been under nvestigation for the last two years.
One of the defendants still has to sign on at a
police station and has been subjected to abuse from the police officers on duty and made to wait up to three hours on some occasions. An attempt to change this bail condition on those grounds was unsuccessful.
The judge ordered the prosecution to provide the
defence with a case summary, which they still have not done, by early July.
The defendants are next in court on 25th July for a
directions hearing. All the defendants still remain out on bail.
The Crimson Repat
