Muslim cleared of murdering BNP man
Steve Greene
A Muslim elder who stabbed his neighbour in the back was dramatically
cleared of murder yesterday after a court was told that he had endured a
living hell of racism, threats and violence.
Habib Khan, 50, of Stoke-on-Trent, was found guilty of the manslaughter
of Keith Brown, 52, a BNP activist and an alleged friend of the BNP
leader, Nick Griffin, who attended his funeral.
Khan killed Mr Brown last July after finding him in a struggle with his
24-year-old son, Azir. He said he thought that Mr Brown was going to
kill Azir and claimed that Mr Brown fell on to a knife he was holding at
his back.
Stafford Crown Court was told that Mr Brown, an unemployed father of
seven with a long criminal record, began a frightening campaign of
intimidation, violence and racial abuse against the Khan family after
objecting to his neighbour building a grand house next to his own modest
home. A few months before the stabbing, Mr Brown’s son, Ashley Barker,
20, was convicted of assaulting Khan. He hit him repeatedly on the head
with a metal object on his wrist.
The court was told that Mr Brown had been jailed in his youth for
wounding with intent and that his most recent conviction was in 2000 for
assault. Khan, on the other hand, was a pillar of his local mosque.
Prosecuting authorities were accused in court of repeatedly failing to
sustain convictions against Mr Brown and Mr Barker, both BNP activists,
described by the defence as “the neighbours from hell”.
During the construction of Khan’s house, Mr Brown and Mr Barker took
sledgehammers to the walls. Mr Brown was convicted of criminal damage
but appealed. When the prosecution failed to warn any witnesses about
the appeal hearing, a judge overturned the conviction.
After the Khan house was built, Mr Brown and Mr Barker kept up with
their persecution of the family, once shouting “Paki b******s” at Khan
and his wife in their garden and threatening to kill them. The police
were called but Khan withdrew his complaint in the hope of seeking
mediation. Next Mr Brown smashed the windows of the Khans’ conservatory.
Khan complained to the police. Mr Brown and Mr Barker were charged with
racially aggravated harassment but the prosecution dropped the case.
“How would you feel discovering the prosecuting authorities had simply
failed you?” Simon Drew, Khan’s lawyer, said. After Mr Barker was
arrested and bailed for his attack on Khan last year, he returned
immediately to Khan’s home and threw a stone at the bedroom window. He
then shouted: “You are dead.” Mr Barker was charged with witness
intimidation but that accusation was dropped after he pleaded guilty to
assault.
Mr Drew said: “It was pure intimidation. It was nothing else. It was
vile, hostile bullying.” On the afternoon of the stabbing, Khan was
alerted by one his daughters that Mr Brown was trying to kill Azir by
squeezing his neck.
Khan grabbed a sharp 10in kitchen knife, leapt over the garden fence and
rushed to Mr Brown. He said Mr Brown mouthed that he would kill Azir.
Khan said that he touched Mr Brown’s back so that he would feel the
blade but Mr Brown fell back on to it.
Mr Barker, who had gone to join the fight, was left with holes in his
head after allegedly being hit by a brick by Khan’s sons. The jury has
so far been unable to reach verdicts on charges that Khan and Azir
wounded Mr Barker. The judge adjourned the case until Wednesday. Khazir
Habib Saddique has admitted wounding Mr Barker.
count zero
guess what the black man was let off.
R. Mark Clayton
"Steve Greene" <stephen_greene.@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:jn4k34t1t9ooc7l1t...@4ax.com...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3994996.ece
>
> A Muslim elder who stabbed his neighbour in the back was dramatically
> cleared of murder yesterday after a court was told that he had endured a
> living hell of racism, threats and violence.
>
> Habib Khan, 50, of Stoke-on-Trent, was found guilty of the manslaughter
> of Keith Brown, 52, a BNP activist and an alleged friend of the BNP
> leader, Nick Griffin, who attended his funeral.
>
So he wasn't "cleared" he was convicted of the lesser charge of
manslaughter.
KJ
and racists that they can't break the English law they all hold dear
superficially but actually don't give a damn about....traitors all of them
Periander
dnfspfuMNBafVn...@bt.com:
>
> So he wasn't "cleared" he was convicted of the lesser charge of
> manslaughter.
Looks like quite a reasonable verdict under the circumstances, whether he
did it deliberately or whether it happened as he claimed. Thank hevens for
juries.
--
Regards or otherwise,
Periander
Andy
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote in news:uf-
> dnfspfuMNBafVnZ2dnUVZ8srin...@bt.com:
>
>
>
> > So he wasn't "cleared" he was convicted of the lesser charge of
> > manslaughter.
>
> Looks like quite a reasonable verdict under the circumstances, whether he
> did it deliberately or whether it happened as he claimed. Thank hevens for
> juries.
>
> --
>
> Regards or otherwise,
>
> Periander
This ruling is based on the legal precedent set by the Tony Martin
case, whereby it is manslaughter rather than murder if there is a
strong element of self defence.
The Martin case showed that there was strong public sympathy for those
driven to killing by consistent harrasment that had severely impacted
on the killers mental health. Since then, juries have been advised to
aquit such defendants of murder in favour of manslaughter.
Such offences remain illegal, and rightly so, but where the level of
provaction is extremely high, manslaughter is sensibly considered the
common sense verdict.
Periander
news:12caf541-ea19-43ff...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Really? I had absolutely no idea, thank you so much.
parr...@yahoo.com
>
> - Visa citerad text -
I can't really see the connection with Martin in this case. Murder is,
AIUI, when you actually kill someone, for example, after the threat to
your own safety had passed. (i.e. Martin firing at some scrote who was
trying to make it out through his window and off his property) it
isn't self defence.
This case, on the other hand, has the element of provocation from the
neanderthal ASBO-collector (and upstanding representative of the BNP)
next door in the form of constant abuse, then a final provocation (or
does it come under self defence if you are defending a member of your
family) of the late thug grabbing his kid round the throat and
apparently attempting to choke him to death.
Anyway, justice was served, and only the BNP seem to think otherwise.
Which is rather telling.
Andy
The cases are indeed very different, but both essentially concern the
killing of criminals. Where the cases are linked, is that that Martin
case, the public outrage, and the long legal battle that followed his
original murder conviction, forced the clarification in the courts of
what constitutes murder, manslaughter and self defence.
Periander
4aa4-819f-f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> The cases are indeed very different, but both essentially concern the
> killing of criminals. Where the cases are linked, is that that Martin
> case, the public outrage, and the long legal battle that followed his
> original murder conviction, forced the clarification in the courts of
> what constitutes murder, manslaughter and self defence.
Sorry mate but as you didn't appear to take my previous hint and you're
you're still talking absolute bollocks the area of law you need to look at
is ...
Provocation has been a jury point since 1957.
There's a nice little resume here if you're interested.
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc290(2).pdf
±¿¢Doug¢¿±
news:Xns9AAA84916F82...@69.16.176.253...
Just wait 'til those juries are 75% muslim -- then get back to me.
Richard Miller
<?@now.com.invalid> writes
It probably already happens in some areas. Your problem with this is?
--
Richard Miller
Periander
news:O+5V8ngR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>>> Looks like quite a reasonable verdict under the circumstances,
>>> whether he did it deliberately or whether it happened as he claimed.
>>> Thank hevens for juries.
>>>
>>
>>Just wait 'til those juries are 75% muslim -- then get back to me.
>>
>
> It probably already happens in some areas. Your problem with this is?
Oh there's lots of problems with the soon to be majority of medieval minded
religious bigots currently taking over the country, however until that
point is reached, thank goodness for juries.
And just to qualify my views on muslims in the UK, as far as I'm concerned
the sooner they are all herded back on to the banana boat or 'turd world
airlines' and dispatched to their place of origin so much the better. In
the meantime though, while they remain our (somewhat unwanted guests) here
in the UK they are entitled to the same protection under law as anyone and
everyone else.
±¿¢Doug¢¿±
news:O+5V8ngR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <lMz_j.2471$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, ąż˘Doug˘żą
Let's see, muslim terrorists/criminals being policed by muslim police
officers and who's trial are adjudicated by musilm judges/juries. No
problem at all! At least for me. For the infidels residing in the UK of
Islamistan it might be a problem.
Svenne
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Just wait 'til those juries are 75% muslim -- then get back to me.
>It probably already happens in some areas. Your problem with this is?
A jury comprised of members of a misogynist, homophobic and illiberal
medieval lunatic cult is something to be concerned about.
How would you feel about juries composed of Scientologists or Moonies
or some other nutter cult?
It's difficult to see what can be done about it, but it is something
to worry about.
Svenne
®i©ardo
Particularly in view of the fact that in the Martin case the local
constabulary were always too busy to help when it was needed and were
then astonished that anyone would have the temerity to defend themselves
because the police had signally failed to do so.
--
Moving things in still pictures!
parr...@yahoo.com
Hmm.. my spider senses detect a backpedalling.. above you claim the
mitigating factors (or the ones that struck a chord with the public)
were 1) Self defense (clearly nonsense in Martin's case) and 2)
Provocation (which appears to have been
> Where the cases are linked, is that that Martin
> case, the public outrage, and the long legal battle that followed his
> original murder conviction, forced the clarification in the courts of
> what constitutes murder, manslaughter and self defence.
I can't see how. AFAICT Self defense and provocation have always been
factors in differentiating between e.g. murder and manslaughter...
Perhaps you can point to some piece of post-Martin legislation which
supports your claim?
Boed...@isp.com
> Another BNP man was stabbed 24 times by a black man with a dagger and
> guess what the black man was let off.
Phew, thank God for that. Just imagine what might have happened if
he had been convicted - a full scale riot at the very least.
"They were giving us the evil eye".
Tony Martin jury on why they found him guilty of defending his home
and killing some gypo who was trying to rob him.
zayton
> Another BNP man was stabbed 24 times by a black man with a dagger and
> guess what the black man was let off.
Justifiable homoside?
Paul Hyett
in alt.politics.british :
The BNP man was gay? :p
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
J Gibbons
"zayton" <zay...@newwavecomm.net> wrote in message
news:zapPl.75755$vj3....@newsfe01.iad...
> count zero wrote:
>> Another BNP man was stabbed 24 times by a black man with a dagger and
>> guess what the black man was let off.
I give up, go on then tell me.