Clarification needed on coroners powers to restrict inquests
Discussion
The BBC report:
"Crucial evidence from the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster, which was undermined at the original inquest, was true, BBC Panorama has found.
An off-duty police officer has always maintained he tried to treat a dying boy after the time at which the coroner said no-one could have survived.
His account cast doubt on medical evidence that supporters could not have survived beyond 15:15 on that day.
Panorama's analysis of unbroadcast TV footage shows his account was true."
On what basis did the coroner make such a decision?
What powers do coroners have to curtail investigations?
For example, on what basis did the coroner in the Menezes inquest prohibit the jury from considering an "unlawful killing" vedict?
Menezes was not a terrorist, he was not armed nor carrying explosives. He was an innocent man shot and killed by two or more assailants. How can the killing be anything other than unlawful?
"Crucial evidence from the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster, which was undermined at the original inquest, was true, BBC Panorama has found.
An off-duty police officer has always maintained he tried to treat a dying boy after the time at which the coroner said no-one could have survived.
His account cast doubt on medical evidence that supporters could not have survived beyond 15:15 on that day.
Panorama's analysis of unbroadcast TV footage shows his account was true."
On what basis did the coroner make such a decision?
What powers do coroners have to curtail investigations?
For example, on what basis did the coroner in the Menezes inquest prohibit the jury from considering an "unlawful killing" vedict?
Menezes was not a terrorist, he was not armed nor carrying explosives. He was an innocent man shot and killed by two or more assailants. How can the killing be anything other than unlawful?
It is difficult to answer you questions without writing quite an extensive essay on the jurisdiction and powers of Coroners, and I suggest that you do some reading on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but here's a summary.
The law relating to Coroners is ancient and in some ways quite odd, although the law has recently been updated by Statute. Coroners conduct most Inquests without juries, and seek to establish cause of death, not to apportion blame or establish criminal or civil liability. In some cases a jury is mandatory, and in cases where the State may have some responsibility for a death the Inquest has an expanded scope in order to comply with the State's obligations under article 2 of the ECHR.
A Coroner sitting with a jury can direct the jury that some verdicts are not legally permissible on the evidence. There is much case law on this, not easily summarised.
The de Menezes case was one of a series of human errors, building a classic accident chain that led to the shooting becoming inevitable. The actual trigger men did nothing unlawful: they had been misinformed and acted in genuine self defence and the defence of others. Self defence is based on perception, not objective fact. The shooters were, in the circumstances, actually rather brave men. They genuinely believed that they were taking on a suicide bomber carrying a deadly weapon. They put themselves in what they believed to be harm's way in order to defend the public. The fault lay with their commanders, colleagues and comms systems.
As for the basis of any decision, that basis must be evidence. If a Coroner reaches a conclusion not supported by evidence, or otherwise unreasonably, his or her decision can be set aside by the High Court, exercising its power of judicial review of a subordinate tribunal.
The law relating to Coroners is ancient and in some ways quite odd, although the law has recently been updated by Statute. Coroners conduct most Inquests without juries, and seek to establish cause of death, not to apportion blame or establish criminal or civil liability. In some cases a jury is mandatory, and in cases where the State may have some responsibility for a death the Inquest has an expanded scope in order to comply with the State's obligations under article 2 of the ECHR.
A Coroner sitting with a jury can direct the jury that some verdicts are not legally permissible on the evidence. There is much case law on this, not easily summarised.
The de Menezes case was one of a series of human errors, building a classic accident chain that led to the shooting becoming inevitable. The actual trigger men did nothing unlawful: they had been misinformed and acted in genuine self defence and the defence of others. Self defence is based on perception, not objective fact. The shooters were, in the circumstances, actually rather brave men. They genuinely believed that they were taking on a suicide bomber carrying a deadly weapon. They put themselves in what they believed to be harm's way in order to defend the public. The fault lay with their commanders, colleagues and comms systems.
As for the basis of any decision, that basis must be evidence. If a Coroner reaches a conclusion not supported by evidence, or otherwise unreasonably, his or her decision can be set aside by the High Court, exercising its power of judicial review of a subordinate tribunal.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st May 09:09
Many thanks for the summary. I will do further reading. Your explanation about the Menenzes verdict still makes me uncomfortable. I accept that the people who pulled the trigger thought they were protecting the public but why have those in command and control not been brought to account? Do we simply say "oh well, accidents happen"?
Is it correct that some of the C & C officers were later promoted? If so, what kind of message does that send?
Is it correct that some of the C & C officers were later promoted? If so, what kind of message does that send?
The Met Commissioner was convicted of an offence under health and safety legislation.
What happened was a tragic error. No one meant to shoot an innocent man. What good does it do to hang people out to dry for making mistakes?
What was worse was that senior Met figures lied about the incident in its aftermath. See also Hillsborough for fibbing about cock ups.
There is, however, an argument that running a blame culture - which is what the OP seems to want - may encourage people to lie and cover up when they make mistakes.
What happened was a tragic error. No one meant to shoot an innocent man. What good does it do to hang people out to dry for making mistakes?
What was worse was that senior Met figures lied about the incident in its aftermath. See also Hillsborough for fibbing about cock ups.
There is, however, an argument that running a blame culture - which is what the OP seems to want - may encourage people to lie and cover up when they make mistakes.
davidball said:
Crucial evidence from the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster, which was undermined at the original inquest, was true ...
Google "HIP Report" and you'll find this (it was second on the list just now) - the original coroner gets a bit of a hammering as regards the seemingly arbitrary 3:15PM "cut off time" (and a few other irregularities such as determining that victims were "drunk" if their BAC was at or above the UK drink-drive limit, and each victim's BAC being read out at the inquest as if of great importance - an emphasis on the disaster being caused by drink, it seems 
), and there is medical evidence ("scoping" of brain stems) that some of the victims were alive at and for some time after 3:15PM 
. You'll also find links to the release of further material, but I haven't looked at that info yet.I wouldn't believe what one reads or hears or sees on the BBC 'news' in isolation
.Breadvan72 said:
There is, however, an argument that running a blame culture - which is what the OP seems to want - may encourage people to lie and cover up when they make mistakes.
worse still no-one will make a decision for fear of it ever coming back to haunt them, i see this in both education and health (family in both) all the time these days.There is also an argument that we (the public) do not have any right to know the details or internal repercussions of a failed police op.
There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
Snowboy said:
There is also an argument that we (the public) do not have any right to know the details or internal repercussions of a failed police op.
The innocent have nothing to fear? Isn't that the standard police attitude?Snowboy said:
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
And nobody bothered to correct the 'mistakes', did they? Puffy jackets, etc?RH
I guess an individuals expectations or perceptions are often based on whether they have an anti-police agenda or not.
Personally; I still believe that Hillsborough was an accident.
I don't blame anyone.
The police couldn't stop the crowd, the crowd had no idea people were dyeing at the front.
If the police had used different crowd control tactics I believe there would still have been deaths; just different ones.
But, we have a blame culture.
So the police blame the fans being a mob.
The fans blame the police for not controlling the mob.
We've not had another Hillsborough.
This isn't due to police or fan changes.
It's because everything has changed in terms of tickets, turnstyles and total crowd management.
We no longer get situations like that.
I still don't believe (most) people lied as such. They just weren't in possession of all the facts.
Personally; I still believe that Hillsborough was an accident.
I don't blame anyone.
The police couldn't stop the crowd, the crowd had no idea people were dyeing at the front.
If the police had used different crowd control tactics I believe there would still have been deaths; just different ones.
But, we have a blame culture.
So the police blame the fans being a mob.
The fans blame the police for not controlling the mob.
We've not had another Hillsborough.
This isn't due to police or fan changes.
It's because everything has changed in terms of tickets, turnstyles and total crowd management.
We no longer get situations like that.
I still don't believe (most) people lied as such. They just weren't in possession of all the facts.
Edited by Snowboy on Tuesday 21st May 10:06
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
I still don't believe (most) people lied as such. They just weren't in possession of all the facts.
And when they finally obtained the facts, was there a retraction (eg- "Sorry- there was no puffy jacket, he didn't run, no challenge was issued" etc)?I assume there were internal reviews.
I don't think there is any need for any public apology.
Snowboy said:
There is also an argument that we (the public) do not have any right to know the details or internal repercussions of a failed police op.
There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
I disagree. I think it is crucial that the public know the details and internal repercussions of a failed police op. How else is the public to know that lessons have been learned from the mistakes and measures/procedures ammended to minimise a recurrance.There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
davidball said:
I disagree. I think it is crucial that the public know the details and internal repercussions of a failed police op. How else is the public to know that lessons have been learned from the mistakes and measures/procedures ammended to minimise a recurrance.
With respect to Hillsborough it's good it was a public inquest about a public event.The DeMezez shooting was not a public event. It has no need to be publicly discussed. For the most part it's an internal matter for the security forces.
It has bugger all to do with the general public.
What the public is interested in is not the same as what is in the public interest.
davidball said:
Many thanks for the summary. I will do further reading. Your explanation about the Menenzes verdict still makes me uncomfortable. I accept that the people who pulled the trigger thought they were protecting the public but why have those in command and control not been brought to account? Do we simply say "oh well, accidents happen"?
Is it correct that some of the C & C officers were later promoted? If so, what kind of message does that send?
Decisions are made on the information available at the time. People who have to manage dynamic risk don't have the luxury of making no decision. Over a great enough series of events - say 10s of thousands of firearms deployments over a decade - lethal and lawful, but mistaken force is probable to occur. Is it correct that some of the C & C officers were later promoted? If so, what kind of message does that send?
Bluntly, give the police guns and the legal obligation to manage high-risk events, people will get shot, eventually.
The processes, procedures, training and culture in place mean that well over 99.9% of firearms deployments result in no force being used at all. Quite an achievement when you consider the risk and the variables. The fact one tragic event sticks out so much (save for the usual suspects trawling Google that makes no difference to what I've written) actually shows what a good state of affairs we have.
For those who it isn't obvious to, the above doesn't mean I feel we accept fatal shootings on the face of them or not hold people to account who have not acted unlawfully, nor constantly look to improve the way things are done.
Snowboy said:
davidball said:
I disagree. I think it is crucial that the public know the details and internal repercussions of a failed police op. How else is the public to know that lessons have been learned from the mistakes and measures/procedures ammended to minimise a recurrance.
With respect to Hillsborough it's good it was a public inquest about a public event.The DeMezez shooting was not a public event. It has no need to be publicly discussed. For the most part it's an internal matter for the security forces.
It has bugger all to do with the general public.
What the public is interested in is not the same as what is in the public interest.
La Liga said:
he public give the police their consent to shoot people on their behalf. They are entitled to know as much as possible (without compromising intelligence, tactics etc) information relating to when an innocent person is shot.
Maybe.But the people elect politicians to deal with this stuff on our behalf.
So arguably the politicians could be told about it on our behalf; then decide how to react on our behalf.
If a person/journalist/academic wants to do a public review of all firearms events in the last few years then I guess they should be given access to data if they have a valid reason.
But that's quite different to some random bloke (myself included) who wants the latest juicy gossip about a police operation that went wrong.
Snowboy said:
The DeMezez shooting was not a public event. It has no need to be publicly discussed. For the most part it's an internal matter for the security forces.
It has bugger all to do with the general public.
You'd like cock-ups like this to be quietly hushed up, would you? Whitewash, that sort of thing?It has bugger all to do with the general public.
As a member of the general public was killed in public I'd say that there is legitimate public interest in the event.
RH
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff