Assassination or Self Defence

[Jonathan Jarvis]

A British citizen fighting for Islamic State is killed in Syria by a British citizen in England piloting an armed drone. Irrespective of whether Reyaad Khan had it coming or not David Cameron must provide the legal basis for his actions the killing.

The law of murder is set out in common law. The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.

S4 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it an offence to solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person to kill another. S9 of the same Act makes the killing an offence triable in the UK if it took place outside the jurisdiction.

The Prime minister stated in parliament that the killing had been pre authorised and the actions were that of self defence. That also he had obtained counsel's advice as to the lawfulness of the proposed killing.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines a person who embarks on a premeditated act of violence cannot avail themselves of the defence of Self Defence. Similarly there are other criteria that impose limits on the seriousness and immediacy of perceived threat that the person relying on the defence may avail themselves.

There is no defence in the UK to homicide that before I took the action I took legal advice and my barrister who said it was lawful to kill the person. This act in its self would destroy a plea of self defence and militate toward premeditation.

Similarly the drone operator would have been following orders to target and kill Khan and was in no immediate danger from Khan.

This post is not about whether the killing of Reyaad Khan was right or wrong - but was it lawful. I suspect not. What I do suspect is that the State may, with impunity, unlawfully kill those who it feels deserve being killed.

 

[Genersis]

I'm not comfortable with the bombing and killing of strategic targets generally.(I'm near enough a pacifist)
That a few(or was it just one?) were British doesn't really change how I feel; I don't see why they're a special case or should get special consideration because of their nationality.

I do agree with your last paragraph, at least when our government is targeting those abroad in areas of conflict.

 

[theFijian]

Had it been a soldier on the ground, would it have been any more/less lawful?

 

[Genersis]

Had it been a soldier on the ground, would it have been any more/less lawful?

To me? No.

 

[Oafman]

Had it been a soldier on the ground, would it have been any more/less lawful?

If this was special forces, operating on the ground in a country with whom we're not at war, and where we have no parliamentary mandate to operate, then I guess the legalities would be very similar.

But if it was standard ground forces deployed to a war which we have justified as legal in international law (and ideally aren't one of just a handful of countriews who think that, as was the case with Iraq) then the situation would be much more straightforward.

I do find this act quite concerning. Call me old fashioned, but any extra-judicial state killing makes me nervous.

But I'm not against it in principal. Assuming the intelligence was accurate and the threat was sufficiently urgent. The biggest concern is that there has not been a House of Commons Intelligence committee operating recently. They would be the body that would review the intelligence and the response, and hold the government to account is something is not right about it. Cameron has promised to re-establish this committee urgently, and I hope they will be immediately tasked with a full review of this incident.