Thread by @DdesimoneDaniel

I have written about the Aidan James trial here bbc.co.uk/news/uk-501569… but wanted to write a short thread too as it is an important case

He was convicted today, after a retrial, of one of the three offences with which he was first charged

This charge - attending a place (Makhmour, Iraq), on or before 1st October 2017, while terrorist training was given, to his knowledge or belief – related to the PKK

The PKK, unlike the Kurdish YPG militia for which James ultimately fought, is a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law

In order to convict, jurors needed to be sure he was at the camp while weapons training occurred wholly or partly for the benefit of the PKK – and that he knew or believed both these things

He did not need to have received the training himself to be found guilty – just been present at the camp while it happened

He was acquitted by jurors of a like charge relating to a YPG training camp in Syria

James did not deny being at the camps, but said his only intention in travelling to the region was to fight the Islamic State group.

The prosecution did not argue that preparing to fight IS – or actually doing so – amounted to terrorism

His actions in fighting IS with the YPG were therefore not the thing for which he was prosecuted

The YPG, after all, was the principle component in the Syrian Democratic Forces, which was then receiving direct military support from the UK and US in the battle against IS

Instead, prosecutors said that James had, in attending the camps, been in places were weapons training was delivered, one purpose of which was the advancement of the wider political or ideological cause of the Kurdish groups

Halfway through the first trial, he was acquitted of the most serious charge – preparing acts of terrorism – after the judge said he had “no case to answer” bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…

The judge - Mr Justice Edis - said there was no evidence that James had prepared to do anything other than fight IS, which prosecutors themselves did not claim was terrorism

What can only be reported now is that the judge said he was “uneasy” about the prosecution in a pre-trial ruling

In the ruling, before all three charges had been tried, he said: “I am uneasy about the prosecution of a man who is able to say that at least some of the acts of terrorism for which was preparing or trained were carried out with the support of the RAF”

He allowed the trial to go ahead, but noted that prosecutors had not explained why James was being treated differently to other Brits who fought IS

He also referred to the attorney general, saying he is answerable to Parliament and that prosecutions of this kind require his consent

He said: "That is because decisions about who in foreign conflicts should be prosecuted are often political decisions in that the UK may choose to prosecute those who are its opponents and not those who are its allies, even though their methods might be equally unlawful"

"These are not judgments that a court can make because the court is not equipped with the relevant advice of the
security services and officials, and does not concern itself with UK foreign policy. Those are not matters on which the court is able to adjudicate"

Following verdicts, the judge asked if the “person” who gave his consent would now provide assistance regarding the impact on the sentencing process of the decision not to prosecute James for fighting IS alongside the YPG, when that was the purpose of all his training

At present, the guidelines and authorities say that so-called just or noble cause terrorism are irrelevant to sentence

But, pre-trial, the judge said the integrity of the justice system will be best affirmed by a fair sentencing process and that a further contribution will therefore be required from “Her Majesty’s Ministers” in this regard