I am no expert but it seems quite incredible that a jury can be instructed that they cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing because
“All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime – murder or manslaughter.”
And yet, in the case of Kate Peyton (the journalist shot in Somalia), the coroner was able to give a verdict of just that. Surely the coroner didn’t know the ‘specific person’ that had shot Ms Perry?
In 2006, the Oxford coroner, Nicholas Gardiner gave a narrative verdict of unlawful killing for the deaths of six Military Police soldiers in Iraq. He didn’t have to specify anyone either.
Captain David Hicks’ inquest also had the result of unlawful killing. Again, no specific person was ‘responsible’ but, rather, it was the Army that was to ‘blame’ for his death.
So, a group can be the reason for unlawful killing. And in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, I fail to understand how the coroner can direct the jury that they cannot reach a verdict of unlawful killing.
Sure, the police have already been convicted under the Health and Safety Act, at which time the police chief was cleared of ‘personal culpability’ but that doesn’t mean that the jury cannot decide, if they feel it is appropriate, that the actual killing of Mr de Menezes was, in their view, unlawful – without attaching this to any particular person.
So, I really don’t understand. It makes you think that there is something very wrong with the ‘justice’ of the UK if a jury cannot come up with the verdict they think fit.
It will be interesting to see how the jury play this one out. Will they come up with a narrative verdict, explaining that they had no choice as the unlawful verdict was taken from their choices? It would annoy me, were I on the jury, to have my options taken away and it would make a difference to what I subsequently decided.
I have been reading the reporting by the BBC on this inquest and, from what I have read, the whole operation seems, to say the least, strange. It’s as if the truth were not being told. For example, if they thought this man was such a threat, why on earth let him get on a bus, let alone enter the tube station?
No, something does not ring true here. Something is not right. It all smacks of hidden agendas, hidden truths, misdirection, smoke and mirrors.
Of course, maybe the jury will decide on lawful killing? Who knows, except them?
Just came across this blog (via italy is falling). Love it!
Why, thank you, Bianca. You are most welcome here.
The whole thing makes me angry.. and not least because I use the tube nearly every day. I have white skin of course which allows me some grace. But the fact that Cressida Dickhead, the officer in charge who ordered the shooting has the tenacity to suggest it could happen again, whilst at the same time claiming no-one was at fault and no mistakes were made should make all Londoners bloody scared of the police.
I have a pact with the Mrs, if I lose my job in the downturn, were making plans to leave for Canada as soon as possible. It’s only the job keeping me here.
There is something wrong with the UK, with the leadership and the police state we are walking into. Too much power has been handed over to the police and now the proletariat have realised with the arrest of a opposition MP but it’s a little too late for outrage now.
If I’m a conspiraloon for realising early enough that ZaNuLabour were plotting to use anti-terror laws against the British public for things unrelated to terrorism, for realising early that the government have taken part in cover ups and conspiracies to keep information from the British public, to use the media to spin and direct attention away from inquiries like this, then so be it.
What I want to know is who the coroner works for and what vested interests he has in the outcome of this inquiry.
And for Gods sake lets hope that the jury has enough of that stubborn British resoluteness to vote unlawful killing, if they don’t have the intelligence to see how they are being manipulated in this way!
I’m not sure that realising, at this late stage, what’s really been going on makes you a conspiraloon. Me too, although I had this feeling of disquiet for some time – I just couldn’t quite put my finger on it.
If I were on the jury, I think, I would give a narrative verdict saying that, as I couldn’t give the verdict that was right, this one would have to do (I think that was one of the options they have).
To be honest, until I read some of what the witnesses said, I felt it could have been a mistake (not being there, in the UK, at the time and missing out on the coverage it must have had). After some of the stuff I read I was shocked.
It is NOT the UK I left and it reinforces the fact that I should never go back, if I can help it. Funnily enough, some friends in the UK have said that, whatever you do, don’t come back – or maybe they’re just trying to make sure I stay away…….