'Witnesses not called'

Sorry I'm repeating myself but I'm really incensed by this.

In yesterday's post about the appeal by the British couple against their sentence for alleged kissing I said:

At an earlier hearing there were claims that witnesses would be presented. There's been no mention of them in the radio and print reports I've come across, so I assume none appeared.

The BBC now has a quote from Ayman Najafi, one of the accused, that adds yet another very disturbing factor to the case:

"It's very harsh, based on contradictory evidence. The courts haven't called on any of our witnesses who are prepared to testify that this didn't happen."

Why would witnesses not be called?

Was the court asked to hear them?

If not why not?

And if it was, why were they not called?

Add to that the previous factors I highlighted in earlier posts; the accuser said her two year old had complained that the couple were kissing indecently, then that she had seen it herself. The discrepancy in the complaint and the validity of a two-year-old's word were not questioned. The accuser did not appear in court, her complaint was a written statement.

Maybe the accused are guilty, maybe they're not. That's what a justice system is supposed to resolve. Call witnesses, insist that the accuser is in court to give evidence, hear all the evidence, weigh the evidence - true evidence, not just one person's unsubstantiated claim - and then arrive at a decision based on that evidence.

No-one knows whether the couple in this case, and others like them, are actually guilty because none of that happened.

The other case going on is similar - I posted about it on March 29.

Briefly, back in November Simon Andrews and an 19 year old Iraqi student got into a stupid road rage situation - the usual tailgating light-flashing thing that goes on daily. They had an argument. Then the student called the police and claimed that Simon gave him the finger so he was charged with indecency.

No witnesses, one word against another, the student has never bothered to turn up in court, and isn't required to.

How does this sound? The student was mad at the traffic situation and in a rage called the police to make things as bad as possible for the other motorist.

A few hours later he'd calmed down and forgotten the whole incident.

The other motorist, Simon, however, has already been punished because his passport has been confiscated. He has to keep appearing in court to defend himsef yet the accuser doesn't have to appear even once.

If the accuser can't be bothered to appear in court to present his claim, and be questioned in an attempt to arrive at the truth, the case should be dismissed.

All cases where the accuser doesn't bother to appear should be dismissed.


One word against another, maybe he's guilty maybe he isn't. But if the evidence isn't presented, witnesses aren't sought and questioned, the accuser isn't in court, the verdict may just as well be based on the toss of a coin.


Justice should not only be done, it must be seen to be done.




BBC report here.

Simon Andrews, Gulf News.



In 7Days the Simon Andrews story says that "the case was adjourned yesterday for the defence to prepare its case." Simon Andrews, 7Days. 'Prepare the case' after all this time? That's bizzare.