Jury in Inquest of de Menezes told what verdict to deliver!

[Estrella]

Of course.

I almost spat out some Jack Daniels when I read that. Something which I would find hard to forgive.

Who pays for what?

As a wild stab in the dark, I would guess he was referring to the enquiry.

 

[Softus]

I almost spat out some Jack Daniels

The name of another p*rn site?

Who pays for what?

As a wild stab in the dark, I would guess he was referring to the enquiry.

I thought it was a shooting in broad daylight?

 

[Estrella]

The name of another p*rn site?

Good idea. I tried to register the domain name , but it would appear its taken by some kind of drink supplier.

I thought it was a shooting in broad daylight?

Now that sounds like a p*rn site!

 

[blondini]

Softus is correct of course

Of course.

Absolutely.

]but what will happen next?

What do you mean?

I mean what will happen next? It's just a question.

]Why did the coroner use the words 'choice of temporary verdicts' when instructing the jury?

I don't know.

I don't know either. It suggests the verdict may not be final.

The coroner also asked the jury to answer a number of questions...

 

[Softus]

I mean what will happen next? It's just a question.

Oh, OK.

I predict that a whole bunch of people will persistently fail to understand what an inquest is.

Why did the coroner use the words 'choice of temporary verdicts' when instructing the jury?

I don't know.

I don't know either. It suggests the verdict may not be final.

I confess to being mystified by that one.

The coroner also asked the jury to answer a number of questions...

Oh, those coroners - always the jokers.

 

[xerxes]

The verdict could be revised by a judicial review.

"The Justice4Jean campaign said it would continue to seek a judicial review of the coroner’s decision while Harriet Wistrich, the family’s solicitor, called on the Crown Prosecution Service to examine whether police officers had perjured themselves."

 

[libby lou lou]

Jury in Inquest of de Menezes told what verdict to deliver!


Softus will sort it out, or he'll get the thread locked

 

[Deluks]

The only good thing to come out of it will be to show everyone around the world what a joke our justice system is.

What justice system? According to Softy, no trial.

An unarmed innocent man gunned down. No trial.
I wonder how the Greeks would react had it happened over there?

 

[Softus]

The only good thing to come out of it will be to show everyone around the world what a joke our justice system is.

What justice system?

You wait all day for an idiot, then three come along all at once.

An unarmed innocent man gunned down. No trial.

The offences I considered included murder, manslaughter, forgery, and breaches of health and safety legislation.

All cases are considered in accordance with the principles in the Code for Crown Prosecutors which states that before a prosecution can commence, there must be a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is not sufficient evidence then a case cannot proceed no matter how important or serious it may be.

After the most careful consideration I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer.

But I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the Office of Commissioner of Police for an offence under sections 3 and 33 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 of failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22nd July 2005.
.
.
.
...I have concluded that the operational errors indicate that there had been a breach of the duties owed to non employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, by the Office of Commissioner of Police and I have authorised a prosecution under that Act.

Met guilty over Menezes shooting

PA
Thursday, 1 November 2007

The Metropolitan Police was today found guilty of breaching health and safety laws over the shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
.
.
.
Prosecutors at the Old Bailey set out 19 alleged failings in the police operation in the hours leading up to the shooting on July 22, 2005.

The jury convicted the force on the second day of its deliberations.

I wonder how the Greeks would react had it happened over there?

And how do you react? You moan on an Internet forum. Good call.

 

[Deluks]

My mind is boggled that all kinds of charges can be brought against business owners and other individuals, when they are considered to be indirectly responsible for a death. (examples below)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7378813.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3993639.stm

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/cps-prosecute-employer-manslaughter.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2547577.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7386182.stm

Yet the act of pinning someone down and shooting them in the head is described as a 'tragic accident' and no manslaughter charges are brought.

Yes we know that they (the Met) were found guilty of breaching H & S laws...

The force was fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 costs by trial judge Mr Justice Henriques

...but I don't see this as any kind of punishment or deterrent, fining a not for profit organisation, which in itself is funded by public money. Where do the fines end up exactly?

And how do you react? You moan on an Internet forum. Good call.

Well don't expect me to start rioting in the streets. It's raining at the moment, and cold.
Plus someone might call the police, and they can be a bit heavy handed with rioters, people have been shot for less.

 

[Softus]

My mind is boggled that all kinds of charges can be brought against business owners and other individuals...
.
.
.
Yet the act of pinning someone down and shooting them in the head is described as a 'tragic accident' and no manslaughter charges are brought.

OK, then. Tell you what:

Since you have all the facts of the case at your disposal, please state the name(s) or role(s) of the individual(s) who you believe was/were directly responsible, and against whom a manslaughter charge should be brought.

 

[blondini]

Why did the coroner use the words 'choice of temporary verdicts' when instructing the jury?

I don't know.

I confess to being mystified by that one.

Well I misquoted that completely. He didn't use those words.

What I should have quoted was, "... you have to decide between two available short term verdicts..." Lifted from a news website.

But it looks like he didn't say that either. The transcript on the Stockwell Inquest website has it as "two available short form verdicts."

 

[Softus]

The transcript on the Stockwell Inquest website has it as "two available short form verdicts."

In that case it's easily cleared up.

My understanding is that the form of verdict has been established by tradition, not by statute - the coroner will do what he thinks is right.

Tradition has it that a short-form verdict is a brief summary, for example:- natural causes, misadventure, unlawful killing, etc..

The coroner's alternative is a narrative verdict, which is either (as in this case) a series of questions to which the inquest must provide answers, or a set of free-form comments on the circumstances.

In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the coroner has apparently decided that the inquest will deliver both types of verdict.

Where the coroner resumes an inquest that had been adjourned in order to await the outcome of a trial, then he is required, by the The Coroners Act 1988, to prevent the finding of the inquest (as to the cause of death) from being inconsistent with the outcome of the relevant criminal proceedings.

For this reason, the direction of the coroner wrt to the short-form verdicts was utterly predictable from the moment of the conclusion of the case against the Office of Commissioner of Police.

The family has already challenged the coroner's decisions (see here), and I expect that it will continue to do so. History will show whether or not his directions, and the stipulated questions, were wise ones, and whether or not his jurisdiction permitted him to make them.

The important outcome of the inquest is that the jury found the account of the police to be factually incorrect, i.e. the jury thinks that the police lied. I have no doubt that the DPP will be asked to review his earlier conclusion in the light of this.

 

[ellal]

The jury have returned an open verdict. Haven't seen a full list of their answers yet, but...

Here's the list..

The jury 12 answers that ask questions of the Met

1) Did officer C12 shout "Armed police" at Mr de Menezes before firing? Jury's answer: No

2) Did Mr de Menezes stand before he was bear-hugged by officer Ivor?Jury: Yes

3) Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed by Ivor? Jury: No

4) Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes?

a) The suicide attacks and attempted attacks of July 2005 and the pressure on the Metropolitan Police in responding to the threat.Jury: Cannot decide

b) A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the suspect, Hussain Osman, for the surveillance team.Jury: Yes

c) A failure by police to ensure Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.Jury: Yes

d) The difficulty in providing an identification of the man under surveillance [Mr de Menezes] in the time available and in the circumstances after he left Scotia Road.Jury: No

e) The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers. Jury: No

f) The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.Jury: Yes

g) The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team as the firearms officers were approaching Stockwell underground station.Jury: Yes

h) Any significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and New Scotland Yard.Jury: Yes

i) A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop.Jury: Yes

I think it's reasonably safe to assume that if an 'unlawful killing' verdict was available the jury would have gone for that given that every answer there is damning of the police, and any actions of the victim was not a contributing factor!

 

[ajstoneservices]

The pedant wrote.

I thought it was a shooting in broad daylight?

.

I thought it was on an artificially lit underground train.