Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Why Wasnt This Left To The Jury?
Answers
on anuvva fred didnt some bad tempered geriatric ( typical AB member then! ter daah ) comment if there were 98 dead policemen there would be none of this official shoulder shrugging and murmuring - you see it is very difficult ......
09:09 Thu 27th May 2021
There does not always have to be somebody held criminally negligent for every disaster that happens. People make mistakes. Making a mistake does not make you a criminal. There have been enough attempts to criminalise the mistakes that were made at Hillsborough. They have all failed. What the campaigners are saying is that all of those verdicts were wrong.
There is no excuse for altering the statements (which is what what the current case is all about). But that had no bearing on the cause of the actual events in 1989.
There seems to be a large chunk of the population which believes that criminal charges must follow any such tragedy. They need to be disabused of that. The disaster took place 32 years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied and that principle applies equally to victims and to those accused. Supt. Duckenfield faced the most serious charge - gross negligence manslaughter - at two trials. At the first the jury could not agree and he was acquitted following a retrial. I said (on here) before he was stood up for the first time that I doubted a conviction would be secured. I was surprised the first jury could not agree. Mr Duckenfield made some grave errors on that day which had tragic consequences. But that's a long way from proving him guilty of a serious criminal offence. Enough is now enough.
There is no excuse for altering the statements (which is what what the current case is all about). But that had no bearing on the cause of the actual events in 1989.
There seems to be a large chunk of the population which believes that criminal charges must follow any such tragedy. They need to be disabused of that. The disaster took place 32 years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied and that principle applies equally to victims and to those accused. Supt. Duckenfield faced the most serious charge - gross negligence manslaughter - at two trials. At the first the jury could not agree and he was acquitted following a retrial. I said (on here) before he was stood up for the first time that I doubted a conviction would be secured. I was surprised the first jury could not agree. Mr Duckenfield made some grave errors on that day which had tragic consequences. But that's a long way from proving him guilty of a serious criminal offence. Enough is now enough.
> There is no excuse for altering the statements (which is what what the current case is all about).
And no comeback. I look forward to hearing the evidence presented to the pending public enquiry into how Covid was handled. I'm sure it will all be 100% trustworthy and not made up or doctored at all, even if there is no penalty for doing so.
And no comeback. I look forward to hearing the evidence presented to the pending public enquiry into how Covid was handled. I'm sure it will all be 100% trustworthy and not made up or doctored at all, even if there is no penalty for doing so.
As usual, newjudge has pinned down the point at issue, and argued it superbly, I would award him BA were it a thread I had originated.
As he points out - major disasters arouse major emotions, and with them a very human need to apportion 'blame' so that someone's actions and behaviour can be held accountable, and ideally, that person or persons can be punished, which satisfies the following human need for retribution, and, to use the dreadful Americanism - 'closure'.
But as the cases have repeatedly confirmed, there is actual no criminal intent here - just human error, and as NJ confirms, you can't prosecute and convict someone for getting something wrong, however dire the consequences may be.
As he points out - major disasters arouse major emotions, and with them a very human need to apportion 'blame' so that someone's actions and behaviour can be held accountable, and ideally, that person or persons can be punished, which satisfies the following human need for retribution, and, to use the dreadful Americanism - 'closure'.
But as the cases have repeatedly confirmed, there is actual no criminal intent here - just human error, and as NJ confirms, you can't prosecute and convict someone for getting something wrong, however dire the consequences may be.
> Two retired police officers and an ex-solicitor accused of altering police statements after the Hillsborough disaster have been acquitted.
This wasn't a case about the Hillsborough disaster, it was a case about doctoring evidence to the public inquiry. The result is that it's acceptable to doctor evidence to a public inquiry.
This wasn't a case about the Hillsborough disaster, it was a case about doctoring evidence to the public inquiry. The result is that it's acceptable to doctor evidence to a public inquiry.
//The result is that it's acceptable to doctor evidence to a public inquiry.//
That isn't the result at all. The three ex-officers were charged with "Perverting the Course of Justice". The public enquiry, as I've tried to point out at least once, was not an enquiry designed to provide justice. So no justice was perverted. There may be other more appropriate charges that might succeed. But they were not brought.
That isn't the result at all. The three ex-officers were charged with "Perverting the Course of Justice". The public enquiry, as I've tried to point out at least once, was not an enquiry designed to provide justice. So no justice was perverted. There may be other more appropriate charges that might succeed. But they were not brought.
o god AH blaarting
But as the cases have repeatedly confirmed, there is actual no criminal intent here -
we havent quite understood the reqts of manslaughter by gross negligence - when there isnt criminal intent but still criminal liability - leading case probably still Adomako
but ho hum - normal day on AB ! carry on blaarting AH !
But as the cases have repeatedly confirmed, there is actual no criminal intent here -
we havent quite understood the reqts of manslaughter by gross negligence - when there isnt criminal intent but still criminal liability - leading case probably still Adomako
but ho hum - normal day on AB ! carry on blaarting AH !
//What if negligence were proven?//
Then there might be a case. But they tried that (twice) with Mr Duckenfield and failed.
//What charges should be brought for doctoring the evidence to a public inquiry?//
Absolutely no idea. “Misconduct in Public Office”, perhaps?
Personally I think it would be an abuse of process to bring that charge against the three officers now. It should have been put to the court as an alternative concurrently with the PCOJ charge, but even that would have been a bit iffy. It would leave the judge and/or the jury performing the role of prosecutor, deciding which charge is appropriate when the elements required to make out the two offences are very different. The higher courts normally take a dim view of prosecutors who fail to secure a conviction on one charge launching a second prosecution against the same individual(s) on a different charge but based on the same facts. It’s rather like a driver who was caught allegedly driving dangerously and at excessive speed who is acquitted of dangerous driving to see himself then charged with speeding. "We've had a go at one charge and it didn't stick. Let's try another."
Then there might be a case. But they tried that (twice) with Mr Duckenfield and failed.
//What charges should be brought for doctoring the evidence to a public inquiry?//
Absolutely no idea. “Misconduct in Public Office”, perhaps?
Personally I think it would be an abuse of process to bring that charge against the three officers now. It should have been put to the court as an alternative concurrently with the PCOJ charge, but even that would have been a bit iffy. It would leave the judge and/or the jury performing the role of prosecutor, deciding which charge is appropriate when the elements required to make out the two offences are very different. The higher courts normally take a dim view of prosecutors who fail to secure a conviction on one charge launching a second prosecution against the same individual(s) on a different charge but based on the same facts. It’s rather like a driver who was caught allegedly driving dangerously and at excessive speed who is acquitted of dangerous driving to see himself then charged with speeding. "We've had a go at one charge and it didn't stick. Let's try another."
'It’s rather like a driver who was caught allegedly driving dangerously and at excessive speed who is acquitted of dangerous driving to see himself then charged with speeding. "We've had a go at one charge and it didn't stick. Let's try another."'
A driver could be charged with manslaughter and found not guilty but the jury could deliver a guilty verdict to the alternative charge of "wanton & furious driving" for example.
A driver could be charged with manslaughter and found not guilty but the jury could deliver a guilty verdict to the alternative charge of "wanton & furious driving" for example.
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.