Oh, for fuck's sake....

[pecunium]

The coroner's jury in the death of Jean de Menenzes is forbidden from considering a verdict of, "unlawful killing."

It's a fine distinction, to be sure... after all the cops were following orders, so the killing must have been lawful, right?

It's actually worse than that. If I understand the article the judge has decided, for the jury, that they coulnd't be sure a cop had commited a crime,"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."

I am sure some interested persons are of just such an opinion. SOme of them might even be sitting on that jury.

Just in case that little bit of directed whitewash wasn't enough, Sir Michael also warned jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to any individuals.

Maybe it's a quirk of the system, after all the people who pulled the trigger are known, but not by name... that's been kept secret, they are merely C2, and C12. So the person who shot him isn't really known, and so can't be named. Or something.

Jurors were also asked to consider which of a number of factors contributed to the Brazilian's death.

Among those were:

* The pressure on police after the 7 July London bombings
* A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached the Underground
* The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion
* Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams involved in the operation


Well... no shit. All of those things contributed, but more to the point what contributed was the cops seem to have done damn all to actually treat de Menezes as if he were the sort of threat they said he was after the shooting. From the testimonies at the trial of the guy in charge (if it can be said anyone was really in charge of the thing), it seems to me that the call was made, as soon as he came out, to kill him. At none of the points in which they could have done something intelligent; like, you know, arrested him before he got on the tube, did they do anything but watch him head to places where the risk increased.

But the verdict said he bore no personal culpability, and this judge, Sir Micheal Wright, has decided that means no criminal, nor civil, blame can attach to anyone.

Here's hoping they leave it, "open".

Comments

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Restricting what verdict the jury can bring in defeats the whole point of having a jury in the first place.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Not always, we don't offer Murder One with special circumstances to every jury considereing a homicide, nor do we allow "justifiable homicide" to those juries weighing a charge of murder.

But in cases like this, where the question isn't one of guilt, but rather offense, yes, I think that sort of limitation is out of order, and converts the jury from a finder of fact to a rubber stamp of cover-up.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

British Coroner's Juries are a bit different from a trial jury, or a US Grand Jury. They used to be able to do some of the things that a Grand Jury can still do, such as bringing in a verdict of murder by a named person, but "unlawful killing" has replaced that.

[songblaze.livejournal.com]

What it sounds like is that the factors necessary to sustain a conviction of unlawful killing are not present in this case. A judge is there to interpret when, as a matter of law even if the prosecution is able to prove the facts (as construed at their most unfavorable to the defendant), the requirements of the crime were not met.

To give a silly example: it is against the (not real!) law to wear a purple hat in Philadelphia on Tuesday, and a more severe one for wearing a purple hat in City Hall. If you are arrested, and the prosecution can argue that you were in the city of Philadelphia and wearing a purple hat on Tuesday, then it is up to the jury to decide whether to find you guilty. If the prosecution has no evidence that you were in City Hall, then the judge has to throw that charge out. It never goes to the jury because a jury decides on what it believes the facts are, and if the worst possible interpretation of the facts all stacked up aren't legally sufficient to make up the crime, then it doesn't matter what the facts are.

Not saying that's definitely what's going on here, but that's what it looks like to me - one of the elements of unlawful killing must not have been met.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

The judge has stepped over his limits.

He has "instructed".

A British Jury, even of a coroner's court, may choose to ignore the instruction, and has done on a number of important and historical occasions.

In some circumstances, a Judge's instructions have been used as evidence of mistrial.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

That'll be interesting to watch. Accurate prediction of what a jury's going to do is notoriously /d/i/f/f/i/c/u/l/t/ impossible, but the British tend to take their Jury rights & responsibilities very seriously and even Coroner's Juries have been known to come up with non-rubber-stamp findings. (I suspect that at least some of the members of that jury feel, as many other people seem to, that there was something Very Wrong about this incident, and that they'll want to put this On Record if they possibly can.)

[luna-the-cat.livejournal.com]

You forgot to mention other things that came out in testimony: the police failed to follow their own procedures, and they deliberately tampered with evidence afterwards to conceal aspects of the event -- which to me implies that *they* saw it as a crime.

Yes, this got to me as well. How DARE that judge; this is absolutely shameful.

[calcinations.livejournal.com]

GGrrrr.
The incompetence of the police involved is huge. I read the report last year (or was it early this year?) that was produced about it. A catalogue of errors and miscommunication all the way from beggining to end, followed by leaks and misdirected briefings in order to cover up the truth. If I behaved that way I would be sacked, however the police were doing the kind of thing the gvt wanted them to, and too many high ups were involved, therefore things have not been dealt with as they should have been.
The Met were well known for being corrupt and incompetent and racist to a degree beyond average, but it had seemed they had improved. With this (legally sanctioned) murder, they have damaged their reputation again.