T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
On The Eve Of The 25Th Anniversary Of The Stephen Lawrence Killing Yet Another Black Lad Is Killed In London, I Wonder If Kwesi Will Be So Remembered In 25 Years Time?
50 Answers
Answers
You could just as easily ask that question of all media outlets, ummmm. Young folk are dropping like flies, especially in the capital but a 25 year old case still seems to get more coverage. More historic guilt and self flagellation maybe?
09:48 Sun 22nd Apr 2018
The “double jeopardy” law was a cornerstone of British justice for about 800 years. It prevented prosecutors from having a second or third crack at a suspect, rehearsing their case and their witnesses along the way. It concentrated their minds to get it right and it protected suspects from ongoing persecution.
There is no doubt in my mind that a big driver behind the relaxation of the double jeopardy rule was the Stephen Lawrence case. In 1994 the Lawrence family wasted the first (and what should have been the only) prosecution against three of the five suspects (charges against two having been dropped before the trial) by initiating a private action. They did so against the perception that insufficient evidence was available, the CPS having declined to prosecute for just that reason. Their action failed mainly because identification evidence was declared as “unreliable” by the trial judge in his summing up.
This did not particularly matter as it turned out because in 1999 the McPherson report had such a move buried among its seventy recommendations. Along with many of the report’s recommendations this one – suggesting the abolition of a basic tenet of UK justice - seemed to stray way beyond the author’s remit. Quite why he should have made such a recommendation is mysterious and almost suggests that he believed – despite agreeing with the trial judge in the failed private prosecution – that the suspects should face another trial come what may. The government wholeheartedly embraced virtually all the report’s recommendations with little or no qualification so the double jeopardy rule, which had served British justice so well under Common Law, was ditched for serious offences where “fresh and compelling evidence” comes to light.
In my view the double jeopardy law is second in importance only to “innocent until proven guilty” in legal principles. Bad legislation often results when made in reaction to one or two cases when the Executive feels that ”something must be done”. This is a prime example of just that.
There is no doubt in my mind that a big driver behind the relaxation of the double jeopardy rule was the Stephen Lawrence case. In 1994 the Lawrence family wasted the first (and what should have been the only) prosecution against three of the five suspects (charges against two having been dropped before the trial) by initiating a private action. They did so against the perception that insufficient evidence was available, the CPS having declined to prosecute for just that reason. Their action failed mainly because identification evidence was declared as “unreliable” by the trial judge in his summing up.
This did not particularly matter as it turned out because in 1999 the McPherson report had such a move buried among its seventy recommendations. Along with many of the report’s recommendations this one – suggesting the abolition of a basic tenet of UK justice - seemed to stray way beyond the author’s remit. Quite why he should have made such a recommendation is mysterious and almost suggests that he believed – despite agreeing with the trial judge in the failed private prosecution – that the suspects should face another trial come what may. The government wholeheartedly embraced virtually all the report’s recommendations with little or no qualification so the double jeopardy rule, which had served British justice so well under Common Law, was ditched for serious offences where “fresh and compelling evidence” comes to light.
In my view the double jeopardy law is second in importance only to “innocent until proven guilty” in legal principles. Bad legislation often results when made in reaction to one or two cases when the Executive feels that ”something must be done”. This is a prime example of just that.
"But Stephen Lawrence' case was unique wasn't it?? He was just waiting for a bus home with is pal and was viciously attacked because he was black. A young, intelligent boy with all his future in front of him dead because of vile racists who hated all black people."
People get killed for all sorts of reasons and every one of them is just as dead as the other. That does not justify finding a way to continually hound suspects that have been acquitted.
People get killed for all sorts of reasons and every one of them is just as dead as the other. That does not justify finding a way to continually hound suspects that have been acquitted.
YMB, from the CPS website, "[The new measures]provide safeguards aimed at preventing the possible harassment of acquitted persons in cases where there is not genuinely new evidence, by requiring the personal consent of the DPP both to the re-opening of investigations and to the making of an application to the Court of Appeal. The DPP will take into account both the strength of the evidence and the public interest in determining whether a re-investigation or application to the Court is appropriate."
50 deaths this year
can anyone on AB name any of the other 49 ?
so why did Stephen Lawrence stay in the public domain so long and was it Doreen's determination that this would not be forgotten ?
The Norrises ( later convicted - much later ;like ten years) were named within 24 h
why was no one arrested on suspicion ?
The first inquiry on why it was so incredibly crap dwelt on why it wasnt. ( excuse me?)
A second inquiry asked why S was allowed to bleed to death ignored by all but two methodists
and determined that Duwayne Brooks behaviour was so bad that it was acceptable to arrest him and ignore Stephen, his stab wound, the blood and then his death
Duwayne Brooks only latterly accepted that his rather immature behaviour hindered and didnt aid any inquiry into Stephens death
A third fourth and fifth inquiry looked at various things and decided that everything was done in the best possible taste
A sixth inquiry established ( after the secret police had impregnated various women in other organisations and then disappeared) - that the liaison officers in the Lawrence household werent liaising but noting the names and addresses of all people who called the Lawrences. This SHOULD have lain to rest any improper and unlawful suggestion that the police were spying on the Lawrences because they were pains in the police arriss and not dangerous terroristen
The inquiry also noted that the points that the Lawrences were gonna make to the Macpherson Inquiry were fed to the police lawyers so they could rebut them in real time.
Sir Paul Condom when asked about this - clutched his bazoom and insisted it didnt happen on his watch ( it did) and if he had known....His squawks of dismay and innocence wore peoples tempers thin- seemed false
Meanwhile the secret police had been shown to be screwing their way froo de leftie women of London and impregnating them - and then successfully walking away from their kids and insisting - "nuffing to do wiv me luv" - including maintenance.
so... a secret policeman - named last WEEK as David Hagan was found in a car driving Duwayne Brooks hither and thither and everyone agrees that DB was not terrroristen - but just dissatisfied with what Plod was doing - so what is David Hagan doing there ?
The placement is agreed but the Police have no record of why he was there and what he was doing. Records of the dept involved ( condom: I never knew it existed so of course I couldnt control it ..... or be responsible ) have been shredded
can anyone on AB name any of the other 49 ?
so why did Stephen Lawrence stay in the public domain so long and was it Doreen's determination that this would not be forgotten ?
The Norrises ( later convicted - much later ;like ten years) were named within 24 h
why was no one arrested on suspicion ?
The first inquiry on why it was so incredibly crap dwelt on why it wasnt. ( excuse me?)
A second inquiry asked why S was allowed to bleed to death ignored by all but two methodists
and determined that Duwayne Brooks behaviour was so bad that it was acceptable to arrest him and ignore Stephen, his stab wound, the blood and then his death
Duwayne Brooks only latterly accepted that his rather immature behaviour hindered and didnt aid any inquiry into Stephens death
A third fourth and fifth inquiry looked at various things and decided that everything was done in the best possible taste
A sixth inquiry established ( after the secret police had impregnated various women in other organisations and then disappeared) - that the liaison officers in the Lawrence household werent liaising but noting the names and addresses of all people who called the Lawrences. This SHOULD have lain to rest any improper and unlawful suggestion that the police were spying on the Lawrences because they were pains in the police arriss and not dangerous terroristen
The inquiry also noted that the points that the Lawrences were gonna make to the Macpherson Inquiry were fed to the police lawyers so they could rebut them in real time.
Sir Paul Condom when asked about this - clutched his bazoom and insisted it didnt happen on his watch ( it did) and if he had known....His squawks of dismay and innocence wore peoples tempers thin- seemed false
Meanwhile the secret police had been shown to be screwing their way froo de leftie women of London and impregnating them - and then successfully walking away from their kids and insisting - "nuffing to do wiv me luv" - including maintenance.
so... a secret policeman - named last WEEK as David Hagan was found in a car driving Duwayne Brooks hither and thither and everyone agrees that DB was not terrroristen - but just dissatisfied with what Plod was doing - so what is David Hagan doing there ?
The placement is agreed but the Police have no record of why he was there and what he was doing. Records of the dept involved ( condom: I never knew it existed so of course I couldnt control it ..... or be responsible ) have been shredded
// That does not justify finding a way to continually hound suspects that have been acquitted.//
yes it does
to continue ....
The records of the dept that deployed David Hagan (named last week as the secret policeman who was unaccountably in the car wiv Duwayne Brooks ) have been shredded 2009 when the department was disbanded on account of that secret section's disinclination to obey the law . no records kept - no account given of the money spent - no assessment of what was achieved over um 40 y
So that is a dead end.
no actually a secret policeman said - "well I didnt"
didnt what ?
destroy the hard drive of a records computer as he said he had never heard of such a thing before. So some records survive and can be assessed
and the result is the Mark Ellison inquiry
yup another one
https:/
and the disinclination of the Met to own up and pay for children its employees fathered in its employ
has led to
https:/
as a poster commented above -
why are we raking up reasons to go over well ploughed subjects such as why were we spying on the Lawrences and not finding out who had killed him ?
Gone over in detail on teevee last week
yes it does
to continue ....
The records of the dept that deployed David Hagan (named last week as the secret policeman who was unaccountably in the car wiv Duwayne Brooks ) have been shredded 2009 when the department was disbanded on account of that secret section's disinclination to obey the law . no records kept - no account given of the money spent - no assessment of what was achieved over um 40 y
So that is a dead end.
no actually a secret policeman said - "well I didnt"
didnt what ?
destroy the hard drive of a records computer as he said he had never heard of such a thing before. So some records survive and can be assessed
and the result is the Mark Ellison inquiry
yup another one
https:/
and the disinclination of the Met to own up and pay for children its employees fathered in its employ
has led to
https:/
as a poster commented above -
why are we raking up reasons to go over well ploughed subjects such as why were we spying on the Lawrences and not finding out who had killed him ?
Gone over in detail on teevee last week
Indeed. And none of it justifies dumping a basic tenet of UK law. Injustices happen all the time for all sorts of reasons and the Stephen Lawrence case was littered with them. The next step may be "well, we know he was acquitted, but the latest enquiry suggests he was guilty, so we'll convict him anyway". The top of a very slippery slope.
NJ. My layman's view of the Double Jeopardy law is that we are well rid of it. A suspect may only be tried on the available evidence at the time, if s/he is acquitted and later further important evidence is discovered which indicates the the accused was in all probability guilty, then s/he must stand trail again, if only in fairness to the victim and family.
AOG
If Kwesi's killers quickly caught, tried, and put away in prison - then is name will quickly fade from memory.
The names of murder victims only stay in public consciousness if there's a partial feature of their story which demands more attention than 'usual'. This is why Keith Bennett is the most recognised name of the victims of the Moors murderers. It's why Sarah Payne is a recognised name, and why Milly Dowler and Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman are remembered and will continue to be remembered.
You raise the case of Kriss Donald, but I'm not sure why. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, the investigating officers completely ballsed up the investigation, but with Kriss - did the same happen?
If Kwesi's killers quickly caught, tried, and put away in prison - then is name will quickly fade from memory.
The names of murder victims only stay in public consciousness if there's a partial feature of their story which demands more attention than 'usual'. This is why Keith Bennett is the most recognised name of the victims of the Moors murderers. It's why Sarah Payne is a recognised name, and why Milly Dowler and Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman are remembered and will continue to be remembered.
You raise the case of Kriss Donald, but I'm not sure why. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, the investigating officers completely ballsed up the investigation, but with Kriss - did the same happen?
"I have tried to find official figures but from news reports, there have been only seven cases that went for a re-trial since the law changed in 2005."
I think you're about right, Corby (+/- one or two). But that is seven (+/- one or two) too many.
When public prosecutors (or private individuals) embark on a criminal prosecution they should be confident that they have a reasonable chance of a conviction. If they haven't such confidence they have no right embarking on the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to achieve a conviction based on the evidence presented at the first trial that should be that. The prosecutors (be they public or private prosecutors) they should not be entitled to have a second crack at it, whether fresh evidence is available or not.
Look at it from the defendant's point of view. He is prosecuted, is asked to enter a plea based on the evidence available. He pleads Not Guilty, the evidence does not achieve a conviction and he is acquitted. The prosecution lets the matter lie until some more evidence comes to light. He then is allowed a second crack at the matter. Is that fair? I don't think so.
The prosecutors in the Lawrence case may well have ballsed it up (whether by accident or design). Whilst that is not the victim's fault, it is clearly not the defendant's fault either.
Regular readers will know that I am the last to side with criminals. But they will also know that I am always anxious to ensure that justice is done. It is unjust to prosecute an individual twice for the same offence.
I think you're about right, Corby (+/- one or two). But that is seven (+/- one or two) too many.
When public prosecutors (or private individuals) embark on a criminal prosecution they should be confident that they have a reasonable chance of a conviction. If they haven't such confidence they have no right embarking on the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to achieve a conviction based on the evidence presented at the first trial that should be that. The prosecutors (be they public or private prosecutors) they should not be entitled to have a second crack at it, whether fresh evidence is available or not.
Look at it from the defendant's point of view. He is prosecuted, is asked to enter a plea based on the evidence available. He pleads Not Guilty, the evidence does not achieve a conviction and he is acquitted. The prosecution lets the matter lie until some more evidence comes to light. He then is allowed a second crack at the matter. Is that fair? I don't think so.
The prosecutors in the Lawrence case may well have ballsed it up (whether by accident or design). Whilst that is not the victim's fault, it is clearly not the defendant's fault either.
Regular readers will know that I am the last to side with criminals. But they will also know that I am always anxious to ensure that justice is done. It is unjust to prosecute an individual twice for the same offence.
I'm old enough to remember a [i]cause célèbre[i] from the sixties - that of James Hanratty hanged for murder in 1962.
Well-known investigative journalists like Ludovic Kennedy argued his innocence. Much later, with the discovery of DNA and the development of new technologies, his guilt was confirmed restrospectively.
Creating a converse case out of that: let's assume that Hanratty had been found innocent. Would the new (and conclusive) DNA evidence constitute grounds for a second prosecution?
Well-known investigative journalists like Ludovic Kennedy argued his innocence. Much later, with the discovery of DNA and the development of new technologies, his guilt was confirmed restrospectively.
Creating a converse case out of that: let's assume that Hanratty had been found innocent. Would the new (and conclusive) DNA evidence constitute grounds for a second prosecution?
no, no more than the others who have died recently.
the Stephen Lawrence killing lives on because it changed the way we view the police, who at the time would be considered racist and against those who botched the investigation. It was a racially motivated killing and one that they still haven't got all those involved. It changed Britain in so far as the police are concerned.
the Stephen Lawrence killing lives on because it changed the way we view the police, who at the time would be considered racist and against those who botched the investigation. It was a racially motivated killing and one that they still haven't got all those involved. It changed Britain in so far as the police are concerned.
I can still see those cocky bar stewards strutting down that gangway to freedom with guilt writ large hanging over them. It may be inconvenient for everyone that they initially got off, even if it was a cock-up, it was in my view correct to have a re-trial.
v_e Try putting more space between the brackets and the word, one space before and 2 spaces after, thus; rhubarb
he then presses answer now with trepidation.
v_e Try putting more space between the brackets and the word, one space before and 2 spaces after, thus; rhubarb
he then presses answer now with trepidation.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.