'Justice for Henry Hicks'
Discussion
RobinOakapple said:
La Liga said:
Ultimately, I expect any wrongdoing will be procedural in nature. Of course the possibility exists that the pursuit was relatively long and, had a relevant manager been aware, it may have been cancelled.
In your opinion, what would be considered a long pursuit on inner London streets. In time ?How have you managed to turn your reply into a quote by Robin?
Policing is very dynamic and circumstantial. This basically means it's not possible to give a simplistic, numerical time e.g. '48 seconds and then it's a long pursuit'.
As soon as the officers believe it's a pursuit, then they should conduct an initial risk assessment. If they deem it immediately high risk then they should turn all their equipment off and pull over to the side of the road. They should then inform the control room of what has occurred.
If they deem it to be low / medium risk, then they should, as soon as they can, inform the control room there's a vehicle failing to stop. It takes time to pass the full risk assessment to the relevant person to grant the authority to continue or not. A vehicle can travel some distance within this phase. There were passengers i.e. 'radio operators' in the vehicles, which makes it a lot easier to inform the control room and pass the information.
The issue may not be one of whether or not an authority was granted, but that the officers were expected to inform the control room at the first reasonable opportunity and failed to do so. That the Met disagreed with the IPCC over misconduct hearings (and had to be forced to hold them) for the two radio operators is interesting. I'd imagine it'd would be they who the responsibility falls upon to inform the control room. Perhaps the risk was too high and it should have stopped straight away, but then no criminal driving standard offences have been forthcoming (the CPS reviewed the matters) and equally, the radio operators would likely have some accountability for not challenging it etc.
Without going on too much, you can see it's far from simple and there are many unknowns which prevent us from drawing conclusions about the policing aspect prior to the IPCC report being published, which can't be published prior to the misconduct hearings.
The fact there are no criminal offences for the police waters the accountability down somewhat. As much as the family and others ultimately want to shift blame on to someone else, it doesn't detract that the fundamental cause and effect for the death lies with Hicks for failing to stop and driving in a manner which made him crash. If he police had driven without due care or dangerously and / or caused the collision through physical contact, then that's clearly unacceptable. In the absence of criminal matters I hope there are some constructive and proportional outcomes (unless it turns out someone's lied etc).
Policing is very dynamic and circumstantial. This basically means it's not possible to give a simplistic, numerical time e.g. '48 seconds and then it's a long pursuit'.
As soon as the officers believe it's a pursuit, then they should conduct an initial risk assessment. If they deem it immediately high risk then they should turn all their equipment off and pull over to the side of the road. They should then inform the control room of what has occurred.
If they deem it to be low / medium risk, then they should, as soon as they can, inform the control room there's a vehicle failing to stop. It takes time to pass the full risk assessment to the relevant person to grant the authority to continue or not. A vehicle can travel some distance within this phase. There were passengers i.e. 'radio operators' in the vehicles, which makes it a lot easier to inform the control room and pass the information.
The issue may not be one of whether or not an authority was granted, but that the officers were expected to inform the control room at the first reasonable opportunity and failed to do so. That the Met disagreed with the IPCC over misconduct hearings (and had to be forced to hold them) for the two radio operators is interesting. I'd imagine it'd would be they who the responsibility falls upon to inform the control room. Perhaps the risk was too high and it should have stopped straight away, but then no criminal driving standard offences have been forthcoming (the CPS reviewed the matters) and equally, the radio operators would likely have some accountability for not challenging it etc.
Without going on too much, you can see it's far from simple and there are many unknowns which prevent us from drawing conclusions about the policing aspect prior to the IPCC report being published, which can't be published prior to the misconduct hearings.
The fact there are no criminal offences for the police waters the accountability down somewhat. As much as the family and others ultimately want to shift blame on to someone else, it doesn't detract that the fundamental cause and effect for the death lies with Hicks for failing to stop and driving in a manner which made him crash. If he police had driven without due care or dangerously and / or caused the collision through physical contact, then that's clearly unacceptable. In the absence of criminal matters I hope there are some constructive and proportional outcomes (unless it turns out someone's lied etc).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5001278/Me...
Apologies for the DM link, but just to bring some sort of closure to a thread I started a couple of years back.
Apologies for the DM link, but just to bring some sort of closure to a thread I started a couple of years back.
andy118run said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5001278/Me...
Apologies for the DM link, but just to bring some sort of closure to a thread I started a couple of years back.
That's very good news indeed.Apologies for the DM link, but just to bring some sort of closure to a thread I started a couple of years back.
andy118run said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5001278/Me...
Apologies for the DM link, but just to bring some sort of closure to a thread I started a couple of years back.
Pleased to hear it.Apologies for the DM link, but just to bring some sort of closure to a thread I started a couple of years back.
It seems the judgement focuses on whether it was a pursuit or not.
In my field ( accountancy) we consider substance over form. If someone is being "followed" by the police and doesn't want to get stopped by them, it seems awfully like a pursuit situation, regardless of whether or not the police have actually tried to stop him yet, or said the magic word to their boss in the control room.
That guidance is there to protect the wider public and officers, and not just the suspect. I can't pick and choose what accountancy guidance I follow, and would be kicked out of my institute (so effectively jobless) if I got caught doing so. Prison is possible if serious enough, though obviously would never be a life or death situation.
As for the family, I can only guess the context is that if they had called it a pursuit, the family would expect the pursuit to have been simply called off (on safety grounds) and allowed the promising footballer to be about his lawful business in peace.
It's a tough call for the police here, but given how much they focus on whether other people are following arbitrary rules or not, it's not asking too much for them to follow their own rules, surely.
If they can't catch crims lawfully, then don't catch them (or change the laws).
Ian
In my field ( accountancy) we consider substance over form. If someone is being "followed" by the police and doesn't want to get stopped by them, it seems awfully like a pursuit situation, regardless of whether or not the police have actually tried to stop him yet, or said the magic word to their boss in the control room.
That guidance is there to protect the wider public and officers, and not just the suspect. I can't pick and choose what accountancy guidance I follow, and would be kicked out of my institute (so effectively jobless) if I got caught doing so. Prison is possible if serious enough, though obviously would never be a life or death situation.
As for the family, I can only guess the context is that if they had called it a pursuit, the family would expect the pursuit to have been simply called off (on safety grounds) and allowed the promising footballer to be about his lawful business in peace.
It's a tough call for the police here, but given how much they focus on whether other people are following arbitrary rules or not, it's not asking too much for them to follow their own rules, surely.
If they can't catch crims lawfully, then don't catch them (or change the laws).
Ian
Ian Geary said:
It seems the judgement focuses on whether it was a pursuit or not.
In my field ( accountancy) we consider substance over form. If someone is being "followed" by the police and doesn't want to get stopped by them, it seems awfully like a pursuit situation, regardless of whether or not the police have actually tried to stop him yet, or said the magic word to their boss in the control room...
I quite possible for a person to be followed by the police and not want to be stopped by them, but that doesn't follow that it qualifies as a pursuit. They may not have been aware that he was aware they were following him, and they may simply have wanted to know where he was going.In my field ( accountancy) we consider substance over form. If someone is being "followed" by the police and doesn't want to get stopped by them, it seems awfully like a pursuit situation, regardless of whether or not the police have actually tried to stop him yet, or said the magic word to their boss in the control room...
Cfnteabag said:
Best bit is the sister saying that they are going to continue to fight for accountability. Obviously ignoring the fact he was on a stolen bike with false plates, carrying illegal drugs and a number of phones and rode off and crashed killing himself it must be someone else fault?
"No justice, no peace" or some other such b
ks will be getting shouted before too long I'm sure.Ian Geary said:
That guidance is there to protect the wider public and officers, and not just the suspect. I can't pick and choose what accountancy guidance I follow, and would be kicked out of my institute (so effectively jobless) if I got caught doing so. Prison is possible if serious enough, though obviously would never be a life or death situation.
They can't pick & choose the guidance they follow either. The panel looked at it & appear to have decided it didn't fit the definition of a pursuit. The definition of a pursuit within the guidance they were to follow. If they hadn't followed the guidance they may have suffered the penalties you describe above.Lets look at the important matters here rather than the minutiae of whether the police are transgressing stupid rules of pursuit - I.e., clearly trying to apprehend a criminal who died in his attempt to escape a tug.
The important bit is. Did the owner of the moped get paid out? That should be the focus. Let the police do their job against little sts like him.
The important bit is. Did the owner of the moped get paid out? That should be the focus. Let the police do their job against little s
ts like him.baldy1926 said:
There's a facebook group - justice for henry hicks its pure comedy gold
I'd never heard of him until this thread got bumped but having had a quick scan of that FB group the family say because he was questioned by the police 70 times previously and not charged the evidence was planted and they murdered himIn America he'd have been given one opportunity to stop then they'd have punted him off it
the news tonight was the first time I heard any detail. He sounds like local drug dealer and was
on a stolen scooter. Had a crash speeding away and apparently its the police's fault.
The massive crowds of protesters smack of local villain influence to me.
Obviously a bit biased as I hate most of these scooter scum which is hard to say being a biker.
Im sure there are some nice lads going to normal work on them as well.
on a stolen scooter. Had a crash speeding away and apparently its the police's fault.
The massive crowds of protesters smack of local villain influence to me.
Obviously a bit biased as I hate most of these scooter scum which is hard to say being a biker.
Im sure there are some nice lads going to normal work on them as well.
No one deserves that, any death is tragic but in my opinion, it's likely that the reason Henry ended up doing what he did was because his family defended him regardless of his illegal activities even at the tragic end and that validated his behaviour (probably through his life) which is why he ended going down the road he did.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff