Menezes "Unlawful Killing" verdict prohibited
Discussion
The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be able to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner has said
Sorry if this is a repost (couldn't find anything), but a very interesting new development in the inquest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm
Sorry if this is a repost (couldn't find anything), but a very interesting new development in the inquest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm
coroner said:
The coroner told jurors to cast aside "any emotion" over the innocent Brazilian's shooting.
He also warned the 11 jurors they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to individuals.
It begs the question, why have an inquest at all. Or does justice have to be seen not to be done?He also warned the 11 jurors they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to individuals.
Zod said:
I'm no expert on coroners' courts, but this strikes me as an odd directive.
+1From the evidence we have seen, there does seem to be quite a case for unlawful killing. That does not automatically implicate the team in the tube station (though there are very serious concerns there), but perhaps the control room under Cressida Dick (which was heavily criticised by Brian Paddick as an expert witness).
Kinda defeats the point of the Jury doesnt it?
Surely the judge cant tell the Jury what conclusions they can come to. Somehow that just doesnt seem like fair justice.
What if the killing was unlawful in the eyes of society? Police have to be just accountable for their actions as citizens are.
Surely the judge cant tell the Jury what conclusions they can come to. Somehow that just doesnt seem like fair justice.
What if the killing was unlawful in the eyes of society? Police have to be just accountable for their actions as citizens are.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Kinda defeats the point of the Jury doesnt it?
Surely the judge cant tell the Jury what conclusions they can come to. Somehow that just doesnt seem like fair justice.
What if the killing was unlawful in the eyes of society? Police have to be just accountable for their actions as citizens are.
They can and do. For example, in another Inquest last month about a man killed in a fall from a fork lift, the coroner directed the jury to return a verdict of accidental death.Surely the judge cant tell the Jury what conclusions they can come to. Somehow that just doesnt seem like fair justice.
What if the killing was unlawful in the eyes of society? Police have to be just accountable for their actions as citizens are.
The inquest will have started with the full range of verdicts. Once the evidence has been heard, the coroner will sum it up and explain to the jury the verdicts available and what the law requires for that verdict. Hence the Coroner can rule out natural causes and suicide when it plainly isn't either. They can also rule out a verdict if the evidence presented did not meet the requirements of the law - hence the open verdict.
The eyes of society doesn't really matter IMO - its according to the law and evidence presented in court. There's a reason why we don't let the Daily Mail decide!
ETA: no one was going to be found guilty because that is not the role of the Coroner and Inquest. They exist simply to determine how the deceased came about their death. It is for the courts to decide blame.
Edited by ninja-lewis on Tuesday 2nd December 15:01
JuniorD said:
If something isn't considered unlawful does that make it lawful?
Which is great news because it would seem therefore that any one of us can be going about
our business and have our heads lawfully blown off.
Given sufficient bad luck, yes. Lot less chance than being killed in a road accident though, unless you live in Brazil, of course.Which is great news because it would seem therefore that any one of us can be going about
our business and have our heads lawfully blown off.
Taken from http://www.amicus-mhna.org/guidecoroners.htm
The Verdict
The conclusion as the cause of death is known colloquially as the verdict whereas, in fact, the whole inquest is “the verdict”. It is usually the most important finding at an inquest. The following standard verdicts are available;
(i) Natural causes
(ii) Industrial disease
(iii) Dependence on drugs non-dependent abuse of drugs
(iv) Want of attention at birth
(v) Killed himself or herself whilst the balance of the mind was disturbed
(vi) Attempted/self induced abortion
(vii) Accident/misadventure
(viii) Execution of sentence of death (very rare these days)
(ix) Killed lawfully
(x) Open verdict
(xi) Killed unlawfully
(xii) Still birth
As regards categories (I) and (iv) above the following words may be added if appropriate “ and that the cause of death was aggravated by a lack of care/self neglect”. An open verdict may be returned where there is insufficient evidence to return any other suggested verdict.
So that would leave what ? open, misadventure or lawful killing.
Is it correct if a verdict of unlawful killing had been passed, that would have lead to a trial?.
Would any of the three I have noted still lead to a trial or could give weight to a civil case from the Menezes family ?
The Verdict
The conclusion as the cause of death is known colloquially as the verdict whereas, in fact, the whole inquest is “the verdict”. It is usually the most important finding at an inquest. The following standard verdicts are available;
(i) Natural causes
(ii) Industrial disease
(iii) Dependence on drugs non-dependent abuse of drugs
(iv) Want of attention at birth
(v) Killed himself or herself whilst the balance of the mind was disturbed
(vi) Attempted/self induced abortion
(vii) Accident/misadventure
(viii) Execution of sentence of death (very rare these days)
(ix) Killed lawfully
(x) Open verdict
(xi) Killed unlawfully
(xii) Still birth
As regards categories (I) and (iv) above the following words may be added if appropriate “ and that the cause of death was aggravated by a lack of care/self neglect”. An open verdict may be returned where there is insufficient evidence to return any other suggested verdict.
So that would leave what ? open, misadventure or lawful killing.
Is it correct if a verdict of unlawful killing had been passed, that would have lead to a trial?.
Would any of the three I have noted still lead to a trial or could give weight to a civil case from the Menezes family ?
Look at it from the armed officers position;
Boss tells you bombers are making their way to the tube to detonate a bomb as they did the week before. You were not there when the boss was told this and don't have their precise knowledge (or lack of it). You are told to stop them, believing they probably have a trigger switch that will take the carriage and you with it. Training says you have to severe the spinal cord to cauise instant death and prevent the reactive triggering. Shouting a warning may alos lead to detonation and loss of life.
Option one. Politely stop search, hoping they have made a mistake or that he doesn't hit the trigger and take the carriage with him. All go home for tea and cake.
Two. Blow his brains out, hoping it severes the spinal cord at the first shot and stops the trigger reaction and that your information was correct. Risk getting charged with manslaughter.
Your call. What would you have done?
Boss tells you bombers are making their way to the tube to detonate a bomb as they did the week before. You were not there when the boss was told this and don't have their precise knowledge (or lack of it). You are told to stop them, believing they probably have a trigger switch that will take the carriage and you with it. Training says you have to severe the spinal cord to cauise instant death and prevent the reactive triggering. Shouting a warning may alos lead to detonation and loss of life.
Option one. Politely stop search, hoping they have made a mistake or that he doesn't hit the trigger and take the carriage with him. All go home for tea and cake.
Two. Blow his brains out, hoping it severes the spinal cord at the first shot and stops the trigger reaction and that your information was correct. Risk getting charged with manslaughter.
Your call. What would you have done?
Brown and Boris said:
Look at it from the armed officers position;
but the whole chain of command is under scruteny here not just the officersBrown and Boris said:
Boss tells you bombers are making their way to the tube to detonate a bomb as they did the week before.
But there weren't any bombers going the the tube station , just an innocent manBrown and Boris said:
You were not there when the boss was told this and don't have their precise knowledge (or lack of it). You are told to stop them, believing they probably have a trigger switch that will take the carriage and you with it.
So you do so as soon as possible not wait till he actually gets to, what is assumed to be his target. Brown and Boris said:
Training says you have to severe the spinal cord to cauise instant death and prevent the reactive triggering. Shouting a warning may alos lead to detonation and loss of life.
Option one. Politely stop search, hoping they have made a mistake or that he doesn't hit the trigger and take the carriage with him. All go home for tea and cake.
Two. Blow his brains out, hoping it severes the spinal cord at the first shot and stops the trigger reaction and that your information was correct. Risk getting charged with manslaughter.
Your call. What would you have done?
It's the fOption one. Politely stop search, hoping they have made a mistake or that he doesn't hit the trigger and take the carriage with him. All go home for tea and cake.
Two. Blow his brains out, hoping it severes the spinal cord at the first shot and stops the trigger reaction and that your information was correct. Risk getting charged with manslaughter.
Your call. What would you have done?
k ups that lead to the officers being put in that no win situation that should be under the microscope.Who decided thatthe man was a terrorist, based on what ?
Edited by odyssey2200 on Tuesday 2nd December 15:54
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff