The NZ Herald has done more work on the RSAA contentious decision that Zaoui’s trials in Belgium and France were flawed. Many have commented this was because the RSAA simply had little idea of how European courts work.
The Belgium Government has confirmed the assertions Zaoui had no lawyer and no translator was not correct.
One of Zaoui’s co-defendants in the France trial has stated he considers Zaoui got a fair trial.
I’ve considered what should be the standard of prood required for a security risk certificate to be issued to prevent a refugee claim. If someone has no convictions, merely suspicion, then the proof should be at least on the balance of probabilities.
But Zaoui is different. He has been convicted of offences in multiple countries. Therefore to ignore those convictions, one would I submit need to satisfy yourself beyond reasonable doubt that the convictions are unsafe.No tag for this post.