I have said previously that cases like this need to be heard in public - the decision of the CPS may have been perfectly correct ... but it was done on the basis of written evidence (as opposed to oral evidence subject to cross-examination) and behind closed doors (as opposed to in a public hearing). I would suggest that in such cases the initial decision is taken and then tested in a new judicial hearing, similar to a US Grand Jury hearing, with a jury deciding, in which the evidence is heard and cross-examined in public and which has the power to overrule the administrative decision and insitute criminal proceedings. That would appear to me to be a justifiable restriction of the general rights of a police officer (or other State agent, as compared with how an ordinary citizen is dealt with as a suspect in a criminal case) in cases where the use of force (or neglect, etc.) has led to death or serious injury.
you seem to have forgotten diarmuid o'neill.
Another issue to be considered - it would be simple enough to make statutory provision for a notice to be served within a six month period in cases in which investigations into inextricably linked serious offences is continuing, the effect being that should no more serious charges be possible the summary only matters could be proceeded with despite the six month period having elapsed.
Yes there would. In "ordinary" cases there is usually a use of force by a suspect who has no lawful reason to use force at all. In cases where the police have used force there is usually a lawful reason to use some force and hence there is an additional (and unless the force used is grossly excessive difficult to overcome) burden. The law (relating to any lawful use of force generally, not specific to use by the police) is that no-one is expected to weigh the use of force to a nicety in a difficult situation with no time to think (see s.76(7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - legislation brought in to try and address the householder use of force issue). Where there is a lawful reason to use force, courts (including juries) are reluctant to convict anyone (not just police officers) who may have used a bit much (see numerous householder cases, numerous cases involving door staff, etc.).
I have already posted about my view of the competence of Freddy Patel and the basic issue of why he was even appointed to the case in the first place. As for the difference, without knowing the facts of the other case I couldn't say. I suspect it is because in that case there was a clear alternative cause of death observable in the second post-mortems that was not, for whatever reason, as inevitably caught up with reliance on his initial observations as in this case. It is not at all unusual for prosecutions to take place (and suceed in some cases) where there is a dispute between pathologists (or other experts) ... but each case needs to be taken on it's merits and the precise areas of dispute / agreement need to be taken into account. This case was, from the outset and even without the complication of Patel's alleged incompetence, going to be an absolute nightmare evidentially. As a senior investigating officer I am not at all surprised that there has been no manslaughter charge - I dealt with many, many non-police cases where that was exactly the same outcome (and more where we got to trial and there was an acquittal).
In a "special" post mortem that would have been absolutely the case. This was not a "special" post-mortem, it appears because at the time it was arranged (somewhat more urgently than usually the case with "routine" ones, no doubt because of the media pressure to know) the prior contact with police was not known. The exact sequence of events between death and first PM would be interesting to know - I'm not sure it is in the public domain.
It's not that I have not "bothered", it's that I have no means of finding out any more than you. I have had a check through some of the stuff published at the time and now and I cannot see the point discussed in the level of detail necessary to make a firm conclusion. Accordingly the best I can do is apply my knowledge and expertise to what we know (i.e. samples not kept, pathologist apparently not on "Home Office List", no photographer / exhibits officer known to be present, etc.) and conclude that that does not sound like a "special" PM.
I'm not saying that the CPS "had" to make the decision. I'm not sure they're saying there is anything that meant they "had" to make the decision. They have made a decision which they are obliged to make and they have explained the rationale for it.
Maybe ... it depends whether the use of force was justifiable in the execution of some lawful act (self-defence, defence of another, prevention of crime, lawful arrest, exercise of various police powers, etc.) AND if it was "reasonable and necessary" to achieve that lawful aim.
yes, that's why they rushed it.
It's simply a fact: in the majority of cases police officers using force are doing so purportedly to carry out a lawful act - please feel free to link to numerous cases of them simply randomly attacking people in the street for no reason. Conversely, in the majority of ordinary cases of assault the suspect cannot point to any lawful act that they are purportedly carrying out (with the exception of self-defence / defence of property cases which frequently lead to no charges / an acquittal).
Not if the same evidential issues linking the use of force with the cause of death existed it wouldn't. Exactly the same extensive investigation and consideration of the case would have been carried out to see if the evidence was there or the case could be presented in such a way as to render a conviction likely ... but if the same conclusion was reached then the outcome would have been the same. But there would have also been an additional complication - in this case the use of force by the officer was purportedly in the exercise of some lawful power (albeit the issue did not arise as the CPS appear to have concluded it was excessive, though it would undoubtedly have been an issue raised by the defence had the matter come to trial) whereas it would be unlikely (albeit not impossible) for a protestor to be able to demonstrate that the use of force on a police officer would have been in the exercise of some lawful right / power.
Because it's patent shite and not worthy of comment. There is absolutely no difference in the law at all. If you think there is please point us in the direction of it ...
Because it's patent shite and not worthy of comment. There is absolutely no difference in the law at all. If you think there is please point us in the direction of it ...
You pointed me in the direction of it:Because it's patent shite and not worthy of comment. There is absolutely no difference in the law at all. If you think there is please point us in the direction of it ...
