Home Media Hub
Libertas News, Articles and Events
The aim of our Media Hub is to provide you a simple place to keep up with the ongoings at Libertas. From News Updates, Insights & Publications, to Events & Webinars. Simply scroll down to see featured items and more.
To ensure you do not miss future updates and events why not register to receive our newsletters by clicking here and completing just a few details.
Featured
Urgent Submission to UN on Medical Neglect of Guantanamo Detainee by Felicity Gerry KC
Dr Felicity Gerry KC makes an urgent further submission to the Special Rapporteur’s Mandate on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment regarding Mr AMMAR AL-BALUCHI held in Guantanamo Bay
Mr al-Baluchi has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (‘NSGB’), by the United States government since 5 September 2006 after being detained at CIA ‘black sites’ across North Africa, Asia and Europe between 2003 and 2006. He has now been imprisoned for 22 years with no conviction. He was held incommunicado for at least 3 years, was subject to extraordinary rendition and interrogation techniques, and was at one-stage used as a ‘torture prop’ by a rogue interrogator who used him to train other interrogators in his particularly harsh brand of information extraction. In April 2025, the Guantanamo Bay military commission ruled that admissions Mr al-Baluchi made were not admissible because the information was obtained by means of torture.
The fact of Mr Al-Baluchi’s torture is unequivocal. As a direct result of his treatment Mr al-Baluchi suffers from on-going physical and psychological health conditions. These conditions have largely gone untreated. This submission concerns the fact that Mr al-Baluchi has been diagnosed with a spinal tumor and doctors visiting NSGB have determined that he will need surgery to investigate, treat and/or remove it. The kind of specialised medical care that this requires cannot be accessed at NSGB. Dr Corry Jeb Kucik, a former Congressionally-mandated oversight Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at NSGB, and currently, Full Professor of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and consultant to the Military Commissions Defense Organization has provided a report (attached) on this matter that plainly states that Mr al-Baluchi’s surgery should beundertaken in the United States or at another Host Nation with the ‘expertise, equipment, required caseload and support structures in place for all potential surgical misadventures’.
Professor Kucik’s report is unambiguous that NSGB is incapable of safely providing complex care for detainees in a timely manner, as is required by Geneva Convention obligations.
Without adequate and immediate medical care Mr al-Baluchi risks a worsening of his condition that is tantamount to torture or ill-treatment.
Therefore, it is important that this issue is addressed by the Special Rapporteur urgently, alongside the extant issues of Mr Al-Baluchi’s historic torture, to help ensure that the United States comply with their obligations under international law as to his treatment (and the treatment of other detainees at NSGB in similar circumstances).
You can read the further submission here
You can read the previous submission here
Libertas Chambers
Featured
Felicity Gerry KC Responds to Law Commission Review on Homicide Law
Dr Felicity Gerry KC has submitted a response to the Law Commission’s call for evidence in their current review of the law relating to homicide offences. Her submission briefly addresses several critical areas for reform, including the separation of the GBH rule from murder, the treatment of complicity in homicide cases, infanticide, consent and so-called “mercy killings,” as well as cases involving domestic violence and coercive control.
Felicity also expressed her gratitude to the Commission for granting an extension of time to make this contribution. You can read her full submission here.
Libertas Chambers
Latest News
Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation
I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation.
The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss.
Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge.
The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility.
This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA).
The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith.
Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser.
In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession.
The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind.
Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint.
The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong.
In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin.
The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive.
In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated.
The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows.
In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith.
Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity.
The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets.
For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential.
Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives.
In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”
Libertas Chambers
Dr Felicity Gerry KC leads in High-Profile Terrorism Trial allegation
Dr Felicity Gerry KC is leading for the defence in the ongoing trial at Preston Crown Court concerning an alleged extremist plot and involving an undercover operative. This trial began on Tuesday this week and is listed in Preston for 3 months
Felicity is leading Irfan Arif of 9 Lincoln’s Court and is instructed by Central Law Chambers
You can read more about the trial here
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/terror-trial-jewish-plot-court-32633594
Libertas Chambers
Darren Snow Secures Not Guity Verdict in Sexual Communication with a Child Case
In yet another fantastic result, Darren Snow, instructed by I A Law, secured a not guilty verdict for his client at Birmingham Crown Court. Darren was instructed only days before the trial to defend this case of alleged sexual communication with a 13-year-old girl.
The case was part of an undercover operation by West Midlands Police where specialist police officers had infiltrated the online free chat forum ChatIB, playing the part of underage girls engaging in sexual chat. The contact and its sexual nature were not disputed. The officer had identified himself as a 13-year-old girl. Darren’s client had maintained from his police interview to trial that he believed that he was engaging in fantasy chat with an adult – something he had often done on the forum.
In cross examination Darren took the officer overseeing the investigation through the ChatIB system – demonstrating that it made clear it was a site for over 18s and anyone using it had to agree a declaration that they were over 18 before being able to access the site and chat with other users. The officer also accepted that the choice of name on the site by Darren’s client had made it blindingly obvious he was on the site to talk about sex. The jury were unanimous with their verdict.
Darren Snow has a growing reputation for his work defending in complex sexual offence cases as leading and junior counsel, including in prosecutions led by KCs.
Libertas Chambers
Marie Spenwyn Represents Young Female in High-Profile Death Case
Marie Spenwyn represented a young female for sentence before the Central Criminal Court related to the death of vulnerable male.
The matter drew significant press attention at the time of the death of Mr Rivero and following sentence. The press sought to lift reporting restrictions as to naming of the three young females but following defence submissions the Court ruled that these be maintained.
Instructed and greatly assisted by youth justice specialist Leah Connolly of Sonn MacMillan Walker.
Media Links
BBC News
Sky News
Libertas Chambers
View more News
Latest Insights
Dr Felicity Gerry KC Writes for Counsel Magazine on Autism
Dr Felicity Gerry KC, a leading expert in criminal law, explores the complex intersection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the UK criminal justice system in her latest piece for Counsel Magazine. Drawing on her extensive experience, Dr Felicity Gerry KC examines how systemic gaps in understanding and support can have profound consequences for neurodiverse individuals, particularly in cases involving joint enterprise convictions. Her article sheds light on the urgent need for reforms and greater awareness to ensure justice is equitable for all.
Article
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
It is not known how many people are in prison for murder when they did not kill anyone but were convicted as secondary parties via the discredited label ‘joint enterprise’. It is not known how many of these people were convicted under the law on ‘joint enterprise’ that in 2016 was held to be erroneous by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is not known how many of these people in prison live with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is currently no national UK audit of prisons to establish this information.
It is known that ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability which affects how people interpret the world and understand it. It affects more than one in 100 people. Despite its prevalence, it remains poorly understood, stigmatised and stereotyped. Research states: ‘if social conventions and connectedness are opaque to [people with ASD], how can they authentically appreciate that a person’s actions are morally wrong?’ The Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge found that an overwhelming majority of ASD accused persons were not provided with adequate support or adjustments in the UK criminal justice system (CJS). This followed an Equality and Human Rights Commission report in June 2020 that warned that the CJS is failing those with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Cambridge report noted that there was almost no research investigating how autistic defendants are being treated within the CJS. In 2024 an expert consensus was published on the identification and support of individuals with ASD in within the UK CJS. It concluded that greater attention needs to be given to this potentially vulnerable population when navigating the CJS.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Joint Enterprise National Monitoring Scheme 2024/25 data released in September 2025 focused on mental health, to include neurodiverse conditions. It states ‘the quality of data flowing about whether or not a defendant has a disability is poor’ and more likely to ‘be identified during a case’ and while it ‘would be kept under review throughout the life of a case’, any updated information may not be available for the purposes of the monitoring scheme. These are significant holes through which ASD people will fall.
Continue reading the full article here:https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/autism-joint-enterprise
Libertas Chambers
Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation
I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation.
The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss.
Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge.
The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility.
This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA).
The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith.
Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser.
In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession.
The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind.
Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint.
The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong.
In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin.
The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive.
In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated.
The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows.
In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith.
Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity.
The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets.
For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential.
Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives.
In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”
Libertas Chambers
Sinéad O’Connor and the Weaponization of Hunger: What if she Sang for Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan?
If Sinéad O’Connor were around today, watching the children of Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan starve, her outrage would be incandescent. Thirty-one years ago, she revealed the true nature of the Irish ‘famine’ and its ‘painful feelings’, in her unique and fearless voice. An Gorta Mór was a woeful period marked by invasion and conflict – a purposeful program starvation, politically recast as the sole result of crop failure. There is no doubt Sinéad’s howl of outrage would link the bitter legacy of Britain’s starvation of Ireland to the deliberate deprivation being perpetrated in parts of the MENA region. She would rightly be calling it a crime.
Across the MENA region, like Sinéad, musicians have framed the language of resistance. Palestinian group DAM have spoken about their guilt and mourning as activist artists watching the devastation at home. Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi, her voice soaring at the Arab Spring, asserted, “I am free and my word is free/ Don’t forget the price of bread … I am the voice of those who do not die,” lyrics that resonate as both witness and indictment. Egyptian band Cairokee, Syrian singer Samih Shqeir, and Lebanese composer Marcel Khalife all fuse grief and protest, arguably turning every refrain into evidence. Through their music, collective memory is sharpened into accusation, particularly on the theme of starvation.
But, when and how can such an accusation become a criminal case?
According to the World Food Programme (WFP), conflict is the primary reason people are living in acute hunger. The WFP explain that hunger drives people away from their land and livelihoods, disrupts markets, increases food prices and destroys critical developmental gains. Palestine, Yemen and Syria are described as “hunger hotspots” where people are suffering devastating impacts.
Research has shown that across all causes and factors, conflict is the dominant feature in famine across time, but it was not until more recently that it became a crime. The Lieber Code (1863) specifically allowed the ‘extreme measure’ of driving the fleeing civilians back into a starving city under siege ‘so as to hasten on the surrender’.
The first instance where ‘deliberate starvation of civilians’ was identified as a war crime was after WWI by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. Although ultimately never implemented, the list of crimes, including starvation, remains one of the earliest attempts at itemising specific war crimes.
Ask about starvation and the siege of Leningrad in WWII is often recalled where there was mass death from hunger, but the siege itself was not unlawful. Starvation remained a military and political tactic, framed as legitimate globally and regionally, well into the twentieth century. Even after the horrors of two world wars, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not specifically prohibit starvation. It was the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that explicitly prohibited starvation as a method of warfare. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, concerned the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It prohibits various acts which deny civilians sustenance. Eleven years later, starvation was added to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime. Six years ago the same laws were amended to apply to non-international armed conflicts – applicable to regions, including MENA.
It is often said that in World War II more people died of starvation and disease than in active combat but Daphne Yuqing Liu, an expert on the law on starvation, describes this as too sweeping a declaration. She explains the modern approach as follows:
“First, there is a fine difference between the tactical use of starvation and starvation due to an instability. Second, the war crime of starvation as we discuss it today is more than food. ‘Hunger’ for water and medicine also count. The test is whether the item is indispensable to civilian life”
This modern test of what is indispensable is important to account for activities in conflict such as destruction/rendering useless by poisoning or polluting water supplies. In MENA, violent attacks on aid workers (and their convoys) and healthcare providers (and their facilities) may be evidence of a starvation tactic.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which controls food distribution has been described as “an experiment in food control and counterinsurgency for the digital era”. In Syria 5.4 million are at risk of hunger. Famine in Yemen is so ubiquitous it has its own Wikipedia page. In relation to Gaza, UN experts have said :
“Securing access to food, water, medicine and critical services is not a matter of charity – it is a legal duty”
So it is that international law now reflects Sinéad’s moral values: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can, with the necessary evidence, lead to accusation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence, although the laws do not apply to combatants, which can make understanding a situation opaque. It is a law which needs to be tested and therefore should not sit idly on the Rome Statute books but needs to be enforced to see if it functions. If it is used, there may be an impact in terms of deterrence or crime prevention, however aspirational that may sound.
We do not have to wait for the much-beleaguered International Criminal Court (which by the way only has three courts), because in many cases, international laws can be enforced in those states which can apply what is known as ‘universal jurisdiction’. This means that many states have the ability to put anyone on trial for international crimes, wherever they are committed.
The Global Investigative Journalist Network has reported that in 2025, over 300 million people face acute hunger and that Sudan and South Sudan, Gaza, and Haiti are facing the worst crises. Which of these are conflict related, time and evidence will tell. In addition to the importance of what has become known as ‘activist lawyering’ for moral imperatives , the international legal prohibition on starvation is also a crucial tool for advocacy, evidence-gathering, and the demand for accountability. The recognition of starvation as a war crime (national or regional) transforms it from a military objective to a violation of international norms.
It follows that the fundamental right to food is not a ‘cost’ of conflict but a key basis to identify organised criminal military activity. In this context, law also empowers musicians, activists, and lawyers to frame starvation, as Sinéad did, not as collateral tragedy, but as evidence of a prosecutable crime. If Sinéad O’Connor were here, she may demand that these laws against starvation do more than exist on paper. She may insist they serve the hungry, not through empty promises but through real-world prosecutions and prevention. Anything less, as MENA’s musicians explain, is silence.
Dr Felicity Gerry KC is an international barrister, consultant and media commentator with expertise in complex, contemporary legal issues such as human trafficking, homicide, terrorism and war crimes.
Check out the article here.
Libertas Chambers
Like Rap Lyrics, Nasheeds Are Being Misused In Court Cases To Reinforce Racist Stereotypes
Dr. Felicity Gerry KC has been featured in Rolling Stone MENA with her article on the controversial use of nasheeds in terrorism trials. She explores how these Islamic devotional songs are sometimes misinterpreted as evidence of extremist beliefs, highlighting the cultural misunderstandings and stereotypes that can influence legal proceedings.
Article
It may surprise many that nasheeds, Islamic devotional songs, can be introduced as prosecution evidence in criminal trials, particularly those involving accusations of terrorism, where the prosecution seeks to prove an accused person has extreme views, beliefs, and associations.
Nasheeds have been used to establish ideological alignment with extremist groups, or to show an accused person’s level of engagement with extremist narratives. However, the probative value of nasheeds as evidence needs to be carefully assessed, as they can be easily misinterpreted or used unfairly, particularly against Muslim youth who may not even speak the language in the song.
Listening to a nasheed, even if it is glorifying violence, does not necessarily mean a person is expressing support for a particular extremist group or cause. It is crucial to consider the context of a nasheed found on a suspect’s phone. They are ubiquitous, and using possession of a download can unbalance the fairness of a criminal trial, especially if investigators and prosecutors are unfamiliar with Islamic culture or a judge or jury has preconceived negative views about Islam.
One case in which I defended, involved an allegation of a terrorist bomb plot, it was possible to show that imagery on a phone was capable of being misunderstood. It related to the Islamic religious icon Khawla Bint Al Azwar, the Islamic equivalent of Joan of Arc. In that case, nasheeds were played in court as evidence of alleged extremism.
The issue of using music as evidence of criminality is gaining prominence in the charging of musicians in relation to their expressed views on the situation in Palestine.
Cases such as the charging of Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a member of the Irish rap group Kneecap, and the cancelling of Bob Vylan, are hot topics on social media, but the use of Nasheed’s to allege someone is of “bad character”, has a propensity to commit a crime, or has an extremist ideology is equally important and perhaps less well known.
The issue of using art and culture as evidence in criminal trials is more commonly discussed in the context of rap music where creative or artistic expression has commonly been used in criminal proceedings as evidence of criminality, even though it is known that rap relies on hyperbole and acts as a form of release for social commentary.
As rap music is part of youth culture, so are nasheeds, yet the two have become targets for prosecutions, to link people to crimes without understanding the art, the culture or the religion. The risk is that lyrics and sounds are taken literally without being understood, branding young people as criminals or criminal associates, as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
As rap music has been used to amplify images of black youth as ‘gang’ members, so nasheeds are used to frame Muslim youth as “extreme”. In one homicide I defended one lyric relied on by the prosecution to impute an accused’s “bad character” appeared in a search on Lyrics.com in 74,283 lyrics by 46 artists, and in 48 albums. Spelt another way, it appeared in 1,836 lyrics by 100 artists, and in 3 albums.
These searches were undertaken by the defense, not the police officer who gave evidence of “gang” associations. In that case that evidence was excluded by the trial judge but evidence of “nicknames”, hand signals and postcodes were admitted, suggesting at least the ‘ghettoization’ of young people in certain locations, even though my client lived elsewhere. My client and another were acquitted. A co-defendant, an emerging rap artist, was convicted.
Searching for nasheed lyrics is less easy. Even accepting that some lyrics that are directly connected to the crime charged might be relevant, rap and nasheeds are not usually presented in this way. Most often, generic lyrics are used as evidence of what someone was thinking or their associations and motive, even where the recording is old, mainstream and the listener is a youth with only passing familiarity with the content.
Assuming nasheeds are terrorist hymns is rooted in stereotyping, reinforces bias and anti-Muslim sentiments, and risks prejudicial effects in court. Campaigns against the use of rap as evidence have gained traction, supported by research from academics, lawyers and NGOs, arguing for a far more rigorous approach to admissibility with the legislature called upon to limit the use of rap as evidence.
The same may well be necessary for nasheeds.
Link to to article: Rolling Stone MENA
Libertas Chambers
View more Insights
Latest Events
Dr Felicity Gerry KC will be at the International Bar Association Conference in Paris from 29 Oct to 3 Nov
Dr Felicity Gerry KC will be at the International Bar Association Conference in Paris from 29 Oct to 3 Nov – She is the Asia Pacific Member of the Criminal Law Committee – if you are attending, she would be delighted to meet you
Conference details here #IBA2023 https://www.ibanet.org/conference-details/CONF2244.
Felicity is currently awaiting verdicts in the Al Hassan trial at the ICC and drafted the memorandum that led to the $82m divestment of the Golden City Investment Scheme in Myanmar. She was recently listed as one of the top 5 international lawyers you would want on your side – details here https://lawandcrime.com/partner-content/meet-the-top-5-international-lawyers-you-want-on-your-side/amp/
Libertas Chambers
Celebrating South Asian Heritage Month
NOTE: This event has now been cancelled.
Libertas Chambers members celebrate South Asian Heritage Month (SAHM) with a wide-ranging panel discussion on legal issues and careers to honour, recognize, and appreciate South Asian history and culture, as well as to comprehend the rich cultural legacy of countries within South Asia. This webinar presented by our members celebrates the accomplishments and legacy of individuals with origins in the South Asian countries.
Presented by our members with South Asian heritage who have expertise in corporate and criminal law on issues concerning South Asian business, countries and heritage in celebration of South Asian heritage month. We are proud to have several practitioners of South Asian origin, which make up 20% of our staff and a collective command of 8 different regional languages.
To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
Webinar Video – Defence Statements and Openings: Rule 25.9 and being fair and concise
We recently held a webinar on Defence Statements and Openings: Rule 25.9 and being fair and concise. A practice is growing of asking Defence Counsel to open 1 or 2 sentences after the prosecution opening in serious cases which may not be in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules. Rule 25.9, taken together with the overriding objective allows for a fair and concise rehearsal of the issues raised in the defence statement or alternatively for the jury to be given the defence statement. This webinar discusses the delivery of defence openings / summary of issues, how defence statements can be framed to support a defence opening, and what is the bare minimum for opening defence issues which is fair.
Presented by Dr Felicity Gerry KC and Marie Spenwyn
Felicity and Marie have significant experience defending in the most serious of criminal matters including homicide, terrorism and war crimes. Both are co-authors of The Sexual Offences Handbook (3rd Ed forthcoming). They are well versed in taking procedural challenges and taking the best strategic approaches for clients.
To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
Defence Statements & Openings: Rule 25.9 and being fair and concise
This webinar has now finished. You can view the replay at our later blog post.
A practice is growing of asking Defence Counsel to open 1 or 2 sentences after the prosecution opening in serious cases which may not be in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules. Rule 25.9, taken together with the overriding objective allows for a fair and concise rehearsal of the issues raised in the defence statement or alternatively for the jury to be given the defence statement. This webinar discusses the delivery of defence openings / summary of issues, how defence statements can be framed to support a defence opening, and what is the bare minimum for opening defence issues which is fair.
Presented by our Dr Felicity Gerry KC and Marie Spenwyn
Felicity and Marie have significant experience defending in the most serious of criminal matters including homicide, terrorism and war crimes. Both are co-authors of The Sexual Offences Handbook (3rd Ed forthcoming). They are well versed in taking procedural challenges and taking the best strategic approaches for clients.
Register today – https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/defence-statements-and-openings-rule-259-and-being-fair-and-concise-tickets-633231280807
To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
View more Events
