“They” referred to the judges in High Court mentioned in the preceding sentence while “he” referred to Hamza. By using passive/active sentences and idiomatic expressions, the writer was able to clearly tell the events that took place. These also gave the story a more detailed description of what happened.
Even if the event revolved around capturing a terrorist and a legal battle for Hamza, the expressions and words in the article were easy enough to understand by civilians. The linguistic choices the writer used were only appropriate for readers of a newspaper, mostly civilians, which is the type of publication the article appeared in.
With his linguistic choices, the writer was able to give a clear picture of how terrorism is viewed as a serious social problem. In fact, the reaction to a possible terrorist threat is so great that Hamza was ordered to leave the country. Moreover, the writer was able to show that even if the problem is a social one, the justice system will be tapped to handle the situation thereby involving the political arena.
For Lines 2/3, the overlap is inadvertent. It can be deemed from studying the first couple of lines that Line 2 is an explanation of Line 1. Also, Speaker A ended his first statement with the phrase “you know”. So, upon hearing the phrase again, Speaker B assumed that Speaker A was finished sharing information.
For Lines 4/5, the overlap violates turn-taking rules. Line 5 can be considered an interruption by Speaker A. An analysis of Line 4 will show that ending the statement with the word ‘everything’ would not relay the real meaning of Speaker B’s message. Moreover, Line 5 does not really respond to the meaning of Line 4 if Speaker B was not interrupted.