Eight found not guilty over birmingham riot deaths...
Discussion
bbc said:
Eight men have been found not guilty of the murder of three men during last summer's riots in Birmingham.
Haroon Jahan, 20, and brothers Shazad Ali, 30, and Abdul Musavir, 31, died on 10 August after being hit by a car on Dudley Road in Winson Green.
All eight defendants denied they planned to kill the men in a co-ordinated attack using three cars and said the deaths were an accident.
Judge Mr Justice Flaux appealed for calm on the streets of Birmingham.
The judge had questioned the reliability of the evidence given in court by Detective Chief Inspector Anthony Tagg, the senior investigating officer.
I think the proverbial will be hitting the fan soon. Haroon Jahan, 20, and brothers Shazad Ali, 30, and Abdul Musavir, 31, died on 10 August after being hit by a car on Dudley Road in Winson Green.
All eight defendants denied they planned to kill the men in a co-ordinated attack using three cars and said the deaths were an accident.
Judge Mr Justice Flaux appealed for calm on the streets of Birmingham.
The judge had questioned the reliability of the evidence given in court by Detective Chief Inspector Anthony Tagg, the senior investigating officer.
There's going to be some questions asked of the CPS and the police after this
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-n...
Edited by MadMullah on Thursday 19th July 18:35
seems like we have another police cock up in store to come
bbc said:
The judge Mr Justice Flaux rejected an earlier application to dismiss the trial over the non-disclosure of evidence by the prosecution.
Defence counsel argued there could not be a fair trial because an offer of immunity to eye-witnesses was not revealed by the prosecution until the latter stages of the proceedings.
Mr Tagg had been judged to have lied on oath to the judge during a hearing held in their absence to establish why the issue of immunity was not disclosed, the jury was told.
In a submission to the judge, defence barrister Michael Turner said of Mr Tagg: "He came to court and on any view lied pretty extensively about what he had said to counsel."
Mr Justice Flaux told the court: "Mr Tagg realised he was seriously at fault for having failed to inform (prosecution counsel) and also for having failed to ensure that this material was disclosed to the defence.
"In effect he invented this story and then repeated that invention in the witness box."
The judge decided a fair trial could still take place, but said he found some of Det Ch Insp Tagg's evidence unreliable.
Defence counsel argued there could not be a fair trial because an offer of immunity to eye-witnesses was not revealed by the prosecution until the latter stages of the proceedings.
Mr Tagg had been judged to have lied on oath to the judge during a hearing held in their absence to establish why the issue of immunity was not disclosed, the jury was told.
In a submission to the judge, defence barrister Michael Turner said of Mr Tagg: "He came to court and on any view lied pretty extensively about what he had said to counsel."
Mr Justice Flaux told the court: "Mr Tagg realised he was seriously at fault for having failed to inform (prosecution counsel) and also for having failed to ensure that this material was disclosed to the defence.
"In effect he invented this story and then repeated that invention in the witness box."
The judge decided a fair trial could still take place, but said he found some of Det Ch Insp Tagg's evidence unreliable.
Am I missing something in that report ? They admit they were in the cars and some were driving them when they hit the 3, but nothing reported other than they were not found guilty of planning to kill them and it was all just a big accident. Did they not get done for dangerous driving ?
I think if the CCTV footage was available on the net, people would quickly get a real idea of what happend.
For some reason when I read the verdict, I didn't worry about there being a riot over the verdict. That fear only seems to kick in when it involves the Police and another section of the community.
I think if the CCTV footage was available on the net, people would quickly get a real idea of what happend.
For some reason when I read the verdict, I didn't worry about there being a riot over the verdict. That fear only seems to kick in when it involves the Police and another section of the community.
Mr_B said:
Am I missing something in that report ? They admit they were in the cars and some were driving them when they hit the 3, but nothing reported other than they were not found guilty of planning to kill them and it was all just a big accident. Did they not get done for dangerous driving ?
I think if the CCTV footage was available on the net, people would quickly get a real idea of what happend.
For some reason when I read the verdict, I didn't worry about there being a riot over the verdict. That fear only seems to kick in when it involves the Police and another section of the community.
Perhaps missing the distinction between murder and manslaughter, gross negligence or causing death by dangerous driving. As I understand it murder has, rightly, an extremely high burden of proof including a premeditated desire to kill the victim. This is also why we get these occasional piss boilers where some yob stabs someone in a fit of rage and ends up getting charged with manslaughter. I think if the CCTV footage was available on the net, people would quickly get a real idea of what happend.
For some reason when I read the verdict, I didn't worry about there being a riot over the verdict. That fear only seems to kick in when it involves the Police and another section of the community.
I would like to introduce second degree murder into UK law, as I believe they have in most US states, which covers causing death through intentional violence and malice, even where death was not intended.
King Herald said:
Mr_B said:
I think if the CCTV footage was available on the net, people would quickly get a real idea of what happend.
It is irrelevant. The court has decided what happened, and that is all that matters really. You would think...
I'll reserve judgement until the Daily Mail tells me what to think!
k up wasAJS- said:
Perhaps missing the distinction between murder and manslaughter, gross negligence or causing death by dangerous driving. As I understand it murder has, rightly, an extremely high burden of proof including a premeditated desire to kill the victim. This is also why we get these occasional piss boilers where some yob stabs someone in a fit of rage and ends up getting charged with manslaughter.
I would like to introduce second degree murder into UK law, as I believe they have in most US states, which covers causing death through intentional violence and malice, even where death was not intended.
I understand the high burden of proof required, but if they were charged with murder and found not guilty of that, wouldn't it fall back to the lesser charge of dangerous driving ? Will there be another case for a DD charge ? The reporting doesn't make it clear what is happening. Did they all walk free from court ?I would like to introduce second degree murder into UK law, as I believe they have in most US states, which covers causing death through intentional violence and malice, even where death was not intended.
King Herald said:
It is irrelevant. The court has decided what happened, and that is all that matters really.
You would think...
Having worked in the Justice System - the Court/Jury is often not even told all of the stuff that may have actually occured during the offence (I am not talking about this case specifically) - what they get is often a watered down vesion (often for legal reasons) and most of the time its just stuff written down in paper.You would think...
IME the Court system is variable and I wouldn't always assume that the matter has been covered in great detail and the Court people had access to EVERYTHING that went on.
As far as I can see, the issue was that some witnesses were offered immunity from prosecution in return for their statements. The problem occurred when the defence was not told this in disclosure before the trial, and the officer in charge lied about why they weren't told this when questioned over it.
The defence seemingly put in an Abuse of Process application, probably on the basis it would be unfair to try the defendants due to evidence of Police dishonesty in the case and/or they could not receive a fair trial due to the witness evidence being tainted by payment of immunity ( and that their evidence was required to ensure a conviction).
It looks as if the Judge refused the defence application to stay for abuse and allowed the trial, although once the jury were informed of these issues they could not safely convict.
The defence seemingly put in an Abuse of Process application, probably on the basis it would be unfair to try the defendants due to evidence of Police dishonesty in the case and/or they could not receive a fair trial due to the witness evidence being tainted by payment of immunity ( and that their evidence was required to ensure a conviction).
It looks as if the Judge refused the defence application to stay for abuse and allowed the trial, although once the jury were informed of these issues they could not safely convict.
If you're going to kill someone make sure you use car it seems.Murder charge was always risky - should have been manslaughter.
Disgraceful scenes of jubilation (although paradoxically understandable when you're millimietres away from a 20 year stretch at HMP) -although some had decency to hide faces and at least media showed only briefest of clip.
3 people dead and no justice just because some cop forgot to tick the right box on forms - and yet there are Rough Justice innocents banged up with the dodgiest and most dubious of evidence against them.
Disgraceful scenes of jubilation (although paradoxically understandable when you're millimietres away from a 20 year stretch at HMP) -although some had decency to hide faces and at least media showed only briefest of clip.
3 people dead and no justice just because some cop forgot to tick the right box on forms - and yet there are Rough Justice innocents banged up with the dodgiest and most dubious of evidence against them.
tali1 said:
...and no justice just because some cop forgot to tick the right box on forms
That's not really a fair representation of what's happened. The failure to declare an important piece of disclosure evidence (ie. that you're effectively paying the prosecution witnesses by offering them immunity) is not simply an administrative failure, particularly when you lie about the reasons for withholding that information when giving evidence before the trial.The court process should be fair for the prosecution and fair for the defence.
In any case, it was not enough to stay the case and the trial was heard, with a jury delivering a not guilty verdict.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Friday 27th July 19:02
10 Pence Short said:
tali1 said:
...and no justice just because some cop forgot to tick the right box on forms
That's not really a fair representation of what's happened. The failure to declare an important piece of disclosure evidence (ie. that you're effectively paying the prosecution witnesses by offering them immunity) is not simply an administrative failure, particularly when you lie about the reasons for withholding that information when giving evidence before the trial.The court process should be fair for the prosecution and fair for the defence.
In any case, it was not enough to stay the case and the trial was heard, with a jury delivering a not guilty verdict.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Friday 27th July 19:02
I agree with what you saying - but the acquittals sit very uneasily with me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff