De Menezes case – radical reform of coroner system required

In the Times, further light is thrown on the De Menezes inquest by Tom Luce, who chaired the Fundamental Review of Coroners and Death Certification in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (2001-03):

The prohibition in Rule 42 of the Coroners’ Rules on framing any verdict “in such a way as to appear to determine any question of (a) criminal liability on the part of a named person, or (b) civil liability” means that except in cases where a death is caused by an unknown and unidentified assailant, the unlawful killing verdict is rarely if ever legitimately available.

I thoroughly recommend the article. As in the case of Damian Green, we find a case for radical reform of the law.

read more | digg story

Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: Jury reaches open verdict

From The Telegraph, the jury return an open verdict on the killing of De Menezes:

After a three-month hearing costing an estimated £6 million, jurors rejected a verdict that the innocent Brazilian had been killed lawfully by police.

They returned an ambigious, open verdict – the only other option they were given after the coroner ruled they could not find that Mr de Menezes was illegally shot dead by officers.

For those of us not completely familiar with the nuances of legal language, we are told:

The coroner had directed them to find an open verdict only if they rejected that the two marksmen who shot dead Mr de Menezes, “were acting in lawful defence of themselves or others” having “honestly although mistakenly” believed that he was a suicide bomber.

The BBC’s explanation of the verdict is also interesting: the jury decided that firearms officer C12 did not shout the warning, “armed police”. This is apparently consistent with the “Kratos” policy explained here.

How things have changed since Lee Clegg was convicted of murder and since I was trained as an armed guard and armed guard commander in the UK, facing an IRA threat.

read more | digg story

Preston: summary fines for swearing and bad behaviour

Thanks to the Jeremy Vine Show over lunch:

Spitting, swearing and aggressive behaviour will be BANNED from ‘Proud Preston’.

Anyone who flouts the tough new code could be arrested or fined by patrolling police officers or council enforcers.

Council officers can fine people £75 for offences like littering, while police can give out fixed penalty notices of up to £80 for a range of offences.

Of course the target behaviour is unacceptable, but do we really want to replace personal responsibility with summary justice for minor misdemeanours? Callers to the show overwhelmingly thought so…

Surely we can do better?

read more | digg story

de Menezes: Coroner rules out unlawful killing verdict

The coroner at the inquest of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot dead by police on the London Underground, ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing today.

Sir Michael Wright told the jury to set aside the emotional pleas of the Brazilian electrician’s family and record either an open verdict or a finding of lawful killing.

read more | digg story

‘Summary justice’ soars as courts bypassed – Times Online

From the Times:

Out-of-court punishments accounted for more than half of all offences dealt with by the criminal justice system last year, according to figures published today.

As food for thought, compare to the 1689 Bill of Rights which provided for freedom from fine and forfeiture without a trial.

read more | digg story

Court cuts ‘compromising judges’

From the BBC, more on the story of cuts in the justice budget:

A leading judge has told the BBC he fears a conflict of interest as courts increasingly depend on income from fines and confiscations to operate.The Ministry of Justice is in talks over a planned £1bn budget cut over the next three years, and wants civil courts to increasingly fund themselves.

read more | digg story

Lord Strathclyde: There is no prospect of 42 days passing the House of Lords today

Let me at least be clear. There is no prospect of this draconian idea passing the House of Lords today. There is no prospect of the Conservative Party softening its opposition to a proposal for which not a shred of credible evidence has been advanced – and which is opposed by a former Labour Lord Chancellor, a former Labour Attorney-General, the former Head of MI5, a former Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are not liberal activists. They are people who know the realities of the terrorist threat. We should heed their views.

read more | digg story

The Guardian, 2005: Britain ‘sliding into police state’

Completing the Political Compass Iconochasms quiz led me to a 2005 article in the Guardian:

George Churchill-Coleman, who headed Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist squad as they worked to counter the IRA during their mainland attacks in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Mr Clarke’s proposals to extend powers, such as indefinite house arrest, were “not practical” and threatened to further marginalise minority communities.

Mr Churchill-Coleman told the Guardian: “I have a horrible feeling that we are sinking into a police state, and that’s not good for anybody. We live in a democracy and we should police on those standards.

I haven’t noticed a reversal of the trend in the past three years.

read more

Times Online – Drivers will have no escape from new speed cameras

From the Times:

Clusters of speed cameras that will monitor drivers’ average speed on all routes across a wide area are to be deployed on hundreds of roads next year.

It will be impossible to evade detection because the digital cameras will cover every entry and exit point and, unlike the earlier speed cameras, will never run out of film.

From Roadcraft, The Essential Police Drivers’ Handbook, which is also used by all the advanced driving organisations:

Good driving depends on constructive attitudes and consideration for other road users. There is already a great deal of potential conflict on the roads without adding to it by selfish and aggressive behaviour. Such behaviour increases the stress levels of other drivers and increases the risk of accidents. Many drivers become unnecessarily angry when other road users interrupt their progress. You can reduce the risk of accidents for yourself and everyone else by being more tolerant and by avoiding actions which create unnecessary stress.

The Handbook goes on to call for driving at a speed which is safe for the conditions and quite right too. Now, how do we reconcile the proposal with the Handbook and what we witness every time we drive? Surely, extensive average speed monitoring will create stress, worsen bad attitudes and promote anger. Surely it will be perceived as constantly interrupting progress, whether or not it does.

It is indisputable that every day this country sees mass civil disobedience in one regard: the speed limit out of town, particularly on the motorways. We are not being governed by consent in this respect and we are reacting with a bad attitude to authority. Is governing through increasingly comprehensive oppression — even if it is mild — likely to improve attitudes?

This government seems determined to control our lives: see also the tags “Authoritarianism” and “Liberty”. What are you going to do about it?

Please sign here and consider how you can get this message out. You can write to your MP in a trice here.

read more | digg story

42-day detention dropped as unworkable – Times Online

According to The Times:

Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be defeated in the House of Lords.

I will celebrate when it actually happens.

Detailed objections to the bill are provided by Liberty.

read more | digg story