“The widow of a July 7 suicide bomber yesterday launched a High Court bid to be represented at the victims’ inquest – saying she had also suffered the loss of a loved one in the atrocity. Hasina Patel, whose husband was terrorist mastermind Mohammad Sidique Khan, is seeking legal aid to challenge the coroner’s decision to exclude Khan’s death from the hearing for the 52 victims of the 2005 London bombings.” [Daily Mail via Amy Alkon]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments }
What kind of terrorist master commits a suicide bombing? The masterminds find dumb saps to do the bombing for them. I’m all for incuding him.
Terrorist masterminds who committed suicide to get to Muslim heaven. I would exclude her from everything. Besides, it was through her husband’s actions that took his own life and many others.
This is an interesting trend which looks as if it is going to be followed in Australia because of the sharing of international policy formation across the British common law world. Australia has had some similar claims relating to the terrorist attacks against its citizens in Bali and against the embassy in Jakarta.
Here’s a lessom in equity my friends, from the historic decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/riggs_palmer.htm
Comments on this entry are closed.