[meglamaniac]

But the problem is that as soon as you set a limit on what is an acceptable hijacking and what isn't, rather than "all hijackings are unacceptable", you open the floodgates.

There are plenty of other people in this world in similar positions to the people in this case. If they get wind that Britain is granting asylum for their "demographic" even though they hijacked a plane, then there will be copycat attempts very shortly. This is why Blair is weighing in, although frankly he shouldn't be using his position to broadcast his personal opinions, trying to influence the courts.

It is hard, because the compassionate part of you can see that these people felt they had no other option, and that they meant no harm. This is why it's a difficult case in the first place.

The courts must consider the whether their decisions may encourage hijackings in the future. In this case, I think they are safe enough because the conviction has been overturned on a technicality (the original judge misdirected the jury or something like that) so is unlikely to be reproducable. Plus the group concerned has already spent substantial time behind bars.

Both sides have strong cases.