Unfortunately for the pilot, sueing a sovereign is very difficult. Even if he wins, he won't collect. It's the same as with the survivors of the 9/11 victims sueing Saudi Arabia. They might just actually win, but they won't get anything, unless SA
feels just so particularly magnanamous.
One thing people should remember here:
There may have been evidence against the pilot that the prosecutors did not want to release to the UK. Unless he was going to be tried in a military tribunal, I doubt it, since by discovery rules that evidence would then have to be turned over to the accused' defense lawyer, anyway. More likely, it was an over-ambitious prosecutor trying to make a name for himself.
The likelyhood is that, if so little evidence existed, the defense would have asked for a preliminary hearing and proven that the evidence did not warrant the arrest of the pilot. It happens more than we hear about.
Another important thing to remember:
Lots of people spend time in jail for being accused of crimes they didn't commit. This man only has a case if the only evidence against him was that he was a muslim, and none of us knows for sure if that is all they had.
Remember, the people who write the news are not lawyers.
They are (usually) reporters who've probably had one (very liberal) class in juris law. People can not be held more than 72 hours (in the US) without being charged with a crime. I do not know what the restriction is in the UK, but I imagine it's similar. However, he may have been charged, then released due to lack of evidence. Also, while a warrant is not the same as an indictment, if he is awaiting extradition, I do not see how a grand jury could be empanelled, since he could not make any statements to the police vis-a-vis an alibi, etc.
I am sorry for this man
, and he is owed some compensation, I agree. However, there are far greater miscarriages of justice I can think of (a recent 9th circuit court of appeals decision comes to mind). And he is now free, and his record should
I agree with the figure stated above: 875,000 pounds, or about $1.5M, should be paid to him to compensate for his loss of income, future employment, and seniority.
I also think it's important to note that, in a lot of other countries, he wouldn't be eligible for any kind of compensation because, under codified law (based on the Napoleonic Code), you are guilty until proven innocent. This is still the case in many countries, even some European ones. I do not have information up-to-date enough to know which ones. It is only under Common Law (which is the model for UK, US, Austalian, New Zealand, and Canadian law, and is similar to many German and Scandinavian systems) that people are "innocent until proven guilty." The fact that he can even bring this case with any expectation of winning speaks volumes about our collective judicial system.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.