34 ms·

(OK technically not EU anymore) UK has stated you won’t be prosecuted https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&

(OK technically not EU anymore) UK has stated you won’t be prosecuted https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=621b4871980bea49f4b7a418%26UK%20foreign%20secretary%20-%20we%20will%20support%20Brits%20heading%20to%20fight%262022-02-27T10%3A32%3A16.700Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:66afebfb-385b-4a05-9eb1-f853d1407e9a&pinned_post_asset_id=621b4871980bea49f4b7a418 https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877?ns_mchan... Edit: as pointed out below, has stated they will “support” citizens taking up the fight, not explicitly that they will not be prosecuted.

andyjohnson0 5y ago
In the UK, section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  There are 2 loopholes in that one sentence alone. "British subject" could be defined as "British subject", which is a special type of British nationality that's not even used anymore, and furthermore, strictly speaking Russia is not at war with Ukraine, because there never was a declaration of war. Of course in 1870 when the law was written nation states still used to declare war on each other, but since the UN decided that war is wrong and laid very strict rules on when you can declare war, nobody has done that ever since. So no declaration of war.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    These 2 loopholes will then relegate soldiers of fortune to a simple murderer status. UK can of course choose to look the other way.
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      > These 2 loopholes will then relegate soldiers of fortune to a simple murderer status. Outside of British jurisdiction, and very difficult evidence wise.
      - FpUser 5y ago
        >"Outside of British jurisdiction" Are you saying that Brits can kill anyone outside of their country and not be prosecuted in Britain if found? That would make one nice supplier of murderers for hire to other countries. Come for a day, kill someone, get back and get paid.
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        For the murder itself, generally speaking, yes. It would be difficult to prosecute them in Britain. But you would almost certainly be extradited to the country where the murder occurred.
        FpUser 5y ago
        And if there is no extradition agreement? And why is it difficult to prosecute (assuming the murder is proven)?
- skissane 5y ago
  > Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. Depends on the position one takes in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. From a legal realist perspective, it is the same, because an unenforced law is not a law at all. > And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government. The UK government has the power to overrule the CPS and discontinue any prosecution, through the Attorney-General’s power of nolle prosequi. That legal procedure is rarely used, because generally if the Attorney-General merely privately threatens the CPS with use of this power, that is enough for them to back down and discontinue a prosecution. A real world example is when the government pressured the SFO to discontinue prosecution of bribery charges relating to defence industry deals with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds that the prosecution would harm the UK’s relationship with that country. If the UK government clearly communicates a policy that UK citizens are allowed to fight for the Ukrainian government, there is zero chance of the CPS prosecuting any of them for doing so. The CPS would likely not even have to be threatened, their “public interest” determination is supposed to show deference to the government’s foreign policy, they’d drop the idea all on their own.

andyjohnson0 5y ago

In the UK, section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government.

sgjohnson 5y ago
There are 2 loopholes in that one sentence alone. "British subject" could be defined as "British subject", which is a special type of British nationality that's not even used anymore, and furthermore, strictly speaking Russia is not at war with Ukraine, because there never was a declaration of war. Of course in 1870 when the law was written nation states still used to declare war on each other, but since the UN decided that war is wrong and laid very strict rules on when you can declare war, nobody has done that ever since. So no declaration of war.
- FpUser 5y ago
  These 2 loopholes will then relegate soldiers of fortune to a simple murderer status. UK can of course choose to look the other way.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    > These 2 loopholes will then relegate soldiers of fortune to a simple murderer status. Outside of British jurisdiction, and very difficult evidence wise.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"Outside of British jurisdiction" Are you saying that Brits can kill anyone outside of their country and not be prosecuted in Britain if found? That would make one nice supplier of murderers for hire to other countries. Come for a day, kill someone, get back and get paid.
      - sgjohnson 5y ago
        For the murder itself, generally speaking, yes. It would be difficult to prosecute them in Britain. But you would almost certainly be extradited to the country where the murder occurred.
        FpUser 5y ago
        And if there is no extradition agreement? And why is it difficult to prosecute (assuming the murder is proven)?
skissane 5y ago
> Truss seems to be saying that the UK government wouldn't support prosecutions, but that's not the same as it being legal. Depends on the position one takes in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. From a legal realist perspective, it is the same, because an unenforced law is not a law at all. > And prosecution decisions are made independently by the CPS, not the government. The UK government has the power to overrule the CPS and discontinue any prosecution, through the Attorney-General’s power of nolle prosequi. That legal procedure is rarely used, because generally if the Attorney-General merely privately threatens the CPS with use of this power, that is enough for them to back down and discontinue a prosecution. A real world example is when the government pressured the SFO to discontinue prosecution of bribery charges relating to defence industry deals with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds that the prosecution would harm the UK’s relationship with that country. If the UK government clearly communicates a policy that UK citizens are allowed to fight for the Ukrainian government, there is zero chance of the CPS prosecuting any of them for doing so. The CPS would likely not even have to be threatened, their “public interest” determination is supposed to show deference to the government’s foreign policy, they’d drop the idea all on their own.