Worboys Case - Supreme Court

[Peter Pedant]

The Supreme Court have changed the law in making the police liable in civil law for catastrophic mistakes.
The judgement is here
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0166-judgment.pdf

People need a question - and do ABers think this is a good thing ?

Their Lordships skate over the Hillsborough and Yorkshire Ripper cases - police not liable for reasons of public policy ....

[murraymints]

The police should be accountable

[wolf63]

for catastrophic mistakes - yes, all evidence should be checked and not 'hidden'.

for human error - depends.

The Police are not all-knowing gods and they will make mistakes or manage to persuade a suggestive person to make a statement that may not be accurate etc etc

[andy-hughes]

Yes, I think it is a good thing.

To listen to one of the rape victims recounting how the investigating officer told her she was 'not believable' because she was not hysterical during her interview shows how flawed the investigations procedures were during this case.

[Peter Pedant]

I thought this case was a non-starter
The final girl killed by Sucliffe - the mother had sued the police for not doing their job
and their lordships basically said - -- so what ?

ditto hillsborough

[murraymints]

Think public opinion of police is at an all time low...nuff is nuff ! Get thy act together !

[woofgang]

Absolutely its a good thing. Its similar to the protection removed from the NHS in Health and Safety Law. which must be about 20ish years ago now.

[david small]

Accountability should be applicable in all public bodies.

[DaisyNonna]

Catastrophic police mistake is no longer having Bobbies on the beat

[jno]

Sounds good to me. It will depend what counts as catastrophic, but there are too many errors that clearly are. And as a general rule, those who administer justice should never be above it.

[Peter Pedant]

O god their lordships agonize about that
( see report )
really serious - rape and murder and other serious things

also they agonize about Convention rights (yeah human rights but no one on AB has noticed yet) - which affect state rights and duties - and personal rights to compensation

more agony about whether a systems failure should be treated differently to failure to perform a duty - really as if this makes a difference to the victim

they tend to pussy foot around
how I miss Denning - forthright and frequently wrong !

[vetuste_ennemi]

Peter asking a question? ("I don't think so" - Keane: Hopes and Fears).

Do you understand the mischief in this pretend question? He's asking you if "you" understand the legal principle behind this decision and if (because "you" - which includes "me" - don't) whether "we" have the energy and intellectual curiosity to find out and think about the issue.

Being lazy gits like me you'll skip these tedious stages and leap to a the management (?) summary position explained by tonight's Sky News or tomorrow's Guardian, or simple moral flag-waving.

Then Peter will quote case study, cite precedent etc. explaining why you/we are the kind of people who make the AB day so disappointingly "normal.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Only ten posts into the thread, no need to feed the beast further, innit?

[woofgang]

I read it...well most of it....

[Peter Pedant]

I was asking a question again, vet, yup guilty as charged

yeah someone previous said - "wodda question den?" as a crushing one-liner (you know the sort) when I just put up a reference alone

the thread should be in Law and we get up to some quite technical points - here it is how their lordships got over previous cases confirming Police immunity
Hillsborough ( Hill v West Yorks Police)
and Sutcliffe
and a recent one - Michael 2015

which they did by starting from art 2 and 3 of the declarationn of human rights, and using a succession of european cases

The lawyer for the respondents has a column in the Times today - he always thought the HIllsborough cases had been mis applied, so he had kinda of an advantage over those such as myself who said - "blimey we know the law on this dont we?" - streetching back to Blackburn v MPC 1968

A lot of people read the original cases
the standard of comment on the Beeb has been low
Clive Coleman didnt seem to understand what he had read

vet- you hadnt read the supreme court judgement before you commented, had you ?

[Peter Pedant]

// Do you understand the mischief in this pretend question? //

there is no mischief - there is a ref to the case if people wish to access it

[Peter Pedant]

// Then Peter will quote case study, cite precedent etc. //

yup - I have checked - we are in the Law section ....