Lisa Smith home.

nthclare

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/lisa-smith-charged-with-membership-of-islamic-state-1.4104358?mode=amp

Charged with membership of ISIS

What about the posters who said that being a member of Isis wasn't a crime ?

Even though a lot of people were suggesting it was and is a crime ?

jmreire

brucky wrote: »

How can people set up a Sate within a Sate. You would have to set up alternative Courts, schools, etc that only teach Islamic law, sounds like she should have gone to the UK to me

Yes or what's wrong with Wahabbi ruled Saudi Arabia??? That is the next best thing to isis, or Indonesia, which is next in line in terms of strict sharia Law? Load's of choices if all she wanted to live in an Islamic Country...but it seems that even they were not Islamic enough for her. She wanted the most extreme cruel and violent form of Islam on the planet.

igCorcaigh

Wait... I thought that since she's going to CCJ that the charge is not membership?

katiek102010

Refused bail. Absolutely delighted

tuxy

nthclare wrote: »

What about the posters who said that being a member of Isis wasn't a crime ?

Even though a lot of people were suggesting it was and is a crime ?

irishstatutebook.ie was offline yesterday making it difficult to link the appropriate legislation to clear things up.

Dante7

Seems to be the Section 6 charge for the moment. Anyway, she has been officially charged, so probably best to close this thread for the usual reasons.

jmreire

nthclare wrote: »

What about the posters who said that being a member of Isis wasn't a crime ?

Even though a lot of people were suggesting it was and is a crime ?

That depends on what Country you mean..in a lot of Country's, membership of isis is a crime in itself...you don't even have to travel to Syria / Iraq etc. But in Ireland, unfortunately, we do not have any isis specific law's. But I imagine, that they will now start the process of drafting new laws to cover situations like this. ( if they have not done so already )

Signore Fancy Pants

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Her lawyer has already been out saying she just wanted to live in an Islamic State, not to join ISIS.

As for the fair trial, I think this will be in front of the Special Criminal Cpurt, no jury to be influenced. The three Judges are supposed to be immune to that stuff.

Well her lawyer is a fcuking idiot.

The only "Islamic State" was unilaterally declared by the former head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The establishment of an "Islamic State" is all encompasing with membership of ISIS.

If thats his angle, Lisa lost out big time.

brucky

Any updates from Clonskeagh, are they supporting one of their sisters? What then of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, of which Imam Halawa is secretary general? He says the council is “an Islamic theological body of scholars based all over Europe” set up “to provide theological answers to questions related to the European context.” But it is presided over by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, banned from the UK and US.

tuxy

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well her lawyer is a fcuking idiot.

The only "Islamic State" was unilaterally declared by the former head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The establishment of an "Islamic State" is all encompasing with membership of ISIS.

If thats his angle, Lisa lost out big time.

Someone has to represent her legally if you wish for the trial to go ahead.
If that's all she will tell him and he has nothing else it's the best he can do to ensure she has a fair trial.

Signore Fancy Pants

tuxy wrote: »

Someone has to represent her legally if you wish for the trial to go ahead.
If that's all she will tell him and he has nothing else it's the best he can do to ensure she has a fair trial.

I agree that she has to be represented.

It just demonstrates how futile a defence of her situation is.

If that is all they have, they just proved the offence.

osarusan

What's the likely punishment if found guilty of that particular charge?

Is there even a precedent for it in Ireland?

nthclare

I suppose give someone enough rope and all that...

tuxy

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

I agree that she has to be represented.

It just demonstrates how futile a defence of her situation is.

If that is all they have, they just proved the offence.

Yes, in my opinion it's a good sign that her solicitor can only come up with a defence that is so weak.

TwoMonthsOff

RTE just removed an article that claimed she had been charged with committing a terrorist offence outside the state between 2015-2018.

Denied bail and to be kept separate from other prisoners for her own safety.

jmreire

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well her lawyer is a fcuking idiot.

The only "Islamic State" was unilaterally declared by the former head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The establishment of an "Islamic State" is all encompasing with membership of ISIS.

If thats his angle, Lisa lost out big time.

Well, the Legal Eagles will now have their day in court...... so we will see.

nthclare

jmreire wrote: »

Well, the Legal Eagles will now have their day in court...... so we will see.

This will be costly I'd say.

nthclare

nthclare wrote: »

What about the posters who said that being a member of Isis wasn't a crime ?

Even though a lot of people were suggesting it was and is a crime ?

posters said that ISIS is not an unlawful organisation in Ireland, which it is not.
Which is why she was not charged with membership of an unlawful organisation.
she was charged under section 6 of the 2005 act, hasn't been tried before the courts before & will be very interesting to see how it oges.

Dante7

osarusan wrote: »

What's the likely punishment if found guilty of that particular charge?

Is there even a precedent for it in Ireland?

There are different maximum sentences, depending on the terrorist offences. But life imprisonment is the max.

Boggles

Ballso wrote: »

Big fan of ISIS are you?

Well, their early stuff, thought they went too commercial and mainstream for a finish.

Apt username.

osarusan

Irish Times says this, which emphasises 'joining' an organisation:

Ms Smith is charged that under Section Six (1)(i) of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 which makes it an offence to join a foreign unlawful organisation.

But the statute book itself says this (if I've found the right section), which is more about engaging in or attempting to engage in terrorist activity rather then membership:

6.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), a person is guilty of an offence if the person—


(a) in or outside the State—


(i) engages in a terrorist activity or a terrorist-linked activity,


(ii) attempts to engage in a terrorist activity or a terrorist-linked activity, or


(iii) makes a threat to engage in a terrorist activity,


or


(b) commits outside the State an act that, if committed in the State, would constitute—


(i) an offence under section 21 or 21A of the Act of 1939, or


(ii) an offence under section 6 of the Act of 1998.

Sardonicat

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

RTE just removed an article that claimed she had been charged with committing a terrorist offence outside the state between 2015-2018.

Denied bail and to be kept separate from other prisoners for her own safety.

That's what they reported on the 1 o'clock nrws as well.

Beechwoodspark

Big slices of humble pie all round for many self appointed legal experts on this thread.

Boggles

As I said this will be a test case.

"activity" is not clearly defined.

I wonder will the 5 others that returned be prosecuted on the back of this?

Dante7

osarusan wrote: »

Irish Times says this, which emphasises 'joining' an organisation:


But the statute book itself says this (if I've found the right section), which is more about engaging in or attempting to engage in terrorist activity rather then membership:

Yeah, the exact charge seems to be,

"6.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), a person is guilty of an offence if the person—

(a) in or outside the State—

(i) engages in a terrorist activity or a terrorist-linked activity,"

Beechwoodspark

I see some of the self appointed experts are still giving their two cents on the case.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Big slices of humble pie all round for many self appointed legal experts on this thread.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s far far far short of anywhere near adequate at the moment

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Fast track legislation to adequately deal with the likes of this one should be rushed through ASAP

Would you like a cup of tea with yours?

osarusan

Dante7 wrote: »

Yeah, the exact charge seems to be,

"6.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), a person is guilty of an offence if the person—

(a) in or outside the State—

(i) engages in a terrorist activity or a terrorist-linked activity,"

I guess this is where the 'she just wanted to live in an Islamic state' defence is coming from.


Hopefully there's enough to pin something on her.

Beechwoodspark

Boggles wrote: »

Would you like a cup of tea with yours?

I’m not the ones who are pompously and ignorantly predicting outcomes

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’m not the ones who are pompously and ignorantly predicting outcomes

No but you were offering incorrect "legal expertise". And you want people to eat humble pie over theirs, but you ain't hungry it would seem.