Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

Duggan family win judicial review challenging coroner's directions to jury on lawful killing.

In ruling appeal court say "arguable" lawful killing verdict "cannot stand". Other ground rejected.

http://t.co/RZZjJcWV00

Moderately good... I don't understand the technicalities of the ruling on the directions, but it seems now that they have at least an important line of argument that it was not reasonable for the cop to hold a (mistaken) belief that Duggan had a gun.

I was rather disappointed to discover that "Order of Mitting" referred to the name of the judge and wasn't a new and exotic piece of legal nomenclature... like "re-mitting" but the other way?
 
Coroner's report can be found here.

The tone, it seems to me, is "I must accept that the jury accepted the MPS account but..."

For example:
41. There was no contemporaneous video or audio coverage of the incident. The police cars had incident data recorders but the MPS says that no data from
them is available. No relevant police radio transmission was recorded.
Am I alone in reading a subtly implied "O RLY?"?
 
Last edited:
The family will argue that the Coroner ought to have directed the jury that if they were sure Mr Duggan was not holding a gun, then they could not return a lawful killing conclusion.
I doubt this is a runner. You can kill in self-defence even if you are in fact wrong about the threat posed (e.g. stabbing a burglar because you thought the turned-off torch was a gun). It isn't legally inconsistent to find that Duggan wasn't holding a gun but that his killing was lawful because the shooter believed he was acting in self-defence.

Another ground of challenge is that the jury should have been told that if the shooter (officer V53) made a mistake of fact, he could rely on that fact only if the mistake was a reasonable one for him to have made. The jury should not have concluded the killing was lawful if it was justified only by an unreasonable mistaken belief.
That sounds like a much more solid basis for seeking a new inquest. Your belief that you were acting in self-defence has to be reasonable and the jury needs to know how the law operates before applying it.
 
I doubt this is a runner. You can kill in self-defence even if you are in fact wrong about the threat posed (e.g. stabbing a burglar because you thought the turned-off torch was a gun). It isn't legally inconsistent to find that Duggan wasn't holding a gun but that his killing was lawful because the shooter believed he was acting in self-defence.


That sounds like a much more solid basis for seeking a new inquest. Your belief that you were acting in self-defence has to be reasonable and the jury needs to know how the law operates before applying it.

"I genuinely thought my life was in danger" Are the words you are looking for.
Classic case being the SAS in Gibraltar being told the IRA bombers were carrying radio controlled detonators. Which turned out to be bollocks.
Though have done judgement training and your mind does play tricks on you and you see weapons where there are none.
 
"I genuinely thought my life was in danger" Are the words you are looking for.
Classic case being the SAS in Gibraltar being told the IRA bombers were carrying radio controlled detonators. Which turned out to be bollocks.
Though have done judgement training and your mind does play tricks on you and you see weapons where there are none.
Would you say that judgement training leads you to see guns everywhere?
 
Judgement training? :hmm:

It is where you are presented with a scenario and have to make a decision to shoot or not. Either with a sort of video game or on a shooting range with some targets being bad guys and others being innocent. And with debrief afterwards. Where you have to justify your actions.

Would you say that judgement training leads you to see guns everywhere?

No normal infantry training is normally done with a battlefield scenario so you expect everyone out there is a target. So being trained to shoot to kill
your looking for targets ,and, of course the no shoot targets are set up so they have things in their hands that might look like weapons at a glance.
tools , torches etc. Judgement training is supposed to make you think twice before pulling the trigger. It works on several occasions I nearly shot people
who under the rules of engagement I could have. I thought it better to risk being blown up than shoot someone who wasn't obeying the rules.
We had a big sign in Arabic and English slow down and approach base slowly barb wire and guns everywhere. Still people drove up everyday like maniacs
either cos they were late, or too important for the rules to apply to them.:facepalm:
Though when we trained with the police it was interesting. While they would see someone with a weapon enough reason to open fire. We wouldn't unless he did something threatening with it. Though we would then shoot him lots and lots of times.
 
Ah right, was never called that when I was in. Thankfully we never shot the kids in NI who'd pop up over walls pointing sticks that looked like weapons.
 
No of course not cops are supposed to be trained better than us. The whole point of them turning up dressed in black mob handed is the crim gives up
knowing they have no chance.
Shame one of them could not use a camera or the cars they drive that have fitted cameras could not be made to work.
 
Back
Top Bottom