Judges Rule Prosecutors Were Wrong Not To Charge Anyone With Manslaughter.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/julian-webster-death-cps-wrong-7115831

Should anyone be held responsible for this man's death, especially as he was suffering from heart disease?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/deadly-combination-killed-clubber-julian-688776

[Peter Pedant]

Judges are pretty unwilling to interfere in the processes of the much loved CPS - they what bring the historical sex cases we spend so much time going over.....

see
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/abuse_of_process/

[royfromaus]

No, if someone has a heart problem you should be able to impairing normal breathing for a few minutes without being held responsible.


OK daft/sarcastic answer but ...

"Should anyone be held responsible for this man's death, especially as he was suffering from heart disease?"

you started it.

[royfromaus]

impare , not impairing.

[Old_Geezer]

I depends on what is considered a reasonable action when performing a doorman's role. If the headlock is reasonable and the circumstances indicated it was the necessary action, then no. If it was considered inappropriate or even excessive, then yes.

[youngmafbog]

Difficult. The man was clearly kicking off or the bouncer would not have had him in a headlock. As to the headlock being highly dangerous you have to put it in the perspective that teh doorman would not have known if he was armed or what he may do.

The Judges are entitled to their opinion, whether it is right or wrong is not really possible to say given the evidence we have.

[Peter Pedant]

+.

i am not sure if the egg-shell skull rule still applies
in which case it doesnt matter if he had heart disease
you have to take your victim as you find him

That demonstartor that the police beat and then died...
did the ( obviously completely innocent ) policeman get off on the grounds the man was a hopeless p+sshead ?

[Gromit]

That is for a jury to decide.

Saying the CPS were wrong not to charge is a legal proceedural decision, not a judgement that he unlawfully killed.

A jury will have access to witness statements and CCTV if it still exists rather than just the medical evidence.

The contention that he could have died at any time due to a medical condition has to be weighed against the fact that he actually died while in an armlock around his throat.

It seems like a jury should be allowed to decide. I cannot see a reason why they shouldn't.

[Peter Pedant]

Gromit it has to get to a jury

that is what they are complaining about - lack of bringing a case er to a jury


The decision to bring the / a case is the CPS and there is judicial reluctance to interfere with their decisions. Even in this one - the judge has sent it back for consideration and not directed that there should be a case.

Oh, in case you are thinking of a private case - the attorney general's permission ( oops isnt he something to do with the CPS ) is now required.

[Gromit]

PP,

The judgement in Birmingham is that the CPS' original decision not to prosecute was wrong and they will have to reconsider (presumably to send it to a jury).

[Peter Pedant]

No they have to reconsider...

NOT send it to a jury - the presumption is not there

[ToraToraTora]

The bloke weas kicking off, the bouncer did his job, I cannot see how the bouncer is supposed to know the guy's medical state and even if he did he still had a job to do. What if he did nothing and some innocent bystander was badly injured or worse? This is another case of a judge living on another planet. For once the CPS got it right. The only person responsible for this mans death was the man himself.