Re: The Mark Duggan Case?
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:03 am
I was going to use some quotes from the various threads mainly from cp who has got a bee in his bonnet over this issue, but I decided that it would make the whole thing too long. I will respond to some of the points raised though as I feel they need some. Although I will point out that I do share some of the concerns he has over the police actions, particularly the Met's actions
The first one was a point raised by exiled in reference to his service in NI which cp said was 'partly irrelevant to this debate'. The British Army in NI was deployed in a different role than what is considered a strictly military role; it was in fact classed as more of a police supporting role, and in this instance it does have more relevance, although it is true to say that firearms are/were routinely carried by the RUC and are/were generally more prevalent than we would expect here.
In our system, juries fulfil a crucial role as assessors of the evidence presented by the both parties to legal proceedings, and consequently act as finders of fact. Historically, the reasons behind this are that they act independently of the professional legal system, including, where necessary judges and kings. That is precisely why the right to trial by a jury of one's peers is a key component of the Magna Carta. One example of the power of the jury was the case brought against Clive Ponting for breaching the Official Secrets Act in 1985. He did what he was accused of and the judge directed the jury to convict him of the offence, yet despite this, the jury weighed what they believed to be the 'right thing to do', and acquitted him. The decision of the jury is what they believe after they weigh all the evidence presented; they have no reason to bend to the will of anyone, and what they say is final.
From the inquest review which mentions evidence already found to be factual.
First, the review draws on statements from people who claim to have witnessed some part of the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mark Duggan. This includes statements from people who claim to have been onlookers, provided to the national press or in the trial and retrial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was tried in September 2012 and then in January 2013 for supplying Mark Duggan with a gun fifteen minutes before Duggan was shot dead. The review also draws on statements from people who claim to have been directly involved in the apprehension and shooting of Duggan, provided in the trial and retrial of Kevin Huthcinson-Foster and to a London Metropolitan Police review of events leading up to the August 2011 London riots, published in February 2012. People who claim to have been directly involved include armed police officers, an armed police officer who claimed to have shot two bullets into Duggan and a taxi driver in whose vehicle Duggan was travelling shortly before he was shot. Of those who provided witness statements some were named. Others were provided with false names or monikers or not named at all, presumably to protect their anonymity.
The first one was a point raised by exiled in reference to his service in NI which cp said was 'partly irrelevant to this debate'. The British Army in NI was deployed in a different role than what is considered a strictly military role; it was in fact classed as more of a police supporting role, and in this instance it does have more relevance, although it is true to say that firearms are/were routinely carried by the RUC and are/were generally more prevalent than we would expect here.
In our system, juries fulfil a crucial role as assessors of the evidence presented by the both parties to legal proceedings, and consequently act as finders of fact. Historically, the reasons behind this are that they act independently of the professional legal system, including, where necessary judges and kings. That is precisely why the right to trial by a jury of one's peers is a key component of the Magna Carta. One example of the power of the jury was the case brought against Clive Ponting for breaching the Official Secrets Act in 1985. He did what he was accused of and the judge directed the jury to convict him of the offence, yet despite this, the jury weighed what they believed to be the 'right thing to do', and acquitted him. The decision of the jury is what they believe after they weigh all the evidence presented; they have no reason to bend to the will of anyone, and what they say is final.
I have not read any sort of transcript, but it is highly likely that the only reason this witness gave evidence is because he was called by Duggan family because his or her evidence suited there contention that Duggan was executed. The inquest though had access to a plethora of evidence that had been previously gathered, and according to reports, this witness did not come across as credible.cpwigan wrote: The inquest heard from only one civilian witness to the shooting itself and he gave a very different account.
From the inquest review which mentions evidence already found to be factual.
First, the review draws on statements from people who claim to have witnessed some part of the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mark Duggan. This includes statements from people who claim to have been onlookers, provided to the national press or in the trial and retrial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was tried in September 2012 and then in January 2013 for supplying Mark Duggan with a gun fifteen minutes before Duggan was shot dead. The review also draws on statements from people who claim to have been directly involved in the apprehension and shooting of Duggan, provided in the trial and retrial of Kevin Huthcinson-Foster and to a London Metropolitan Police review of events leading up to the August 2011 London riots, published in February 2012. People who claim to have been directly involved include armed police officers, an armed police officer who claimed to have shot two bullets into Duggan and a taxi driver in whose vehicle Duggan was travelling shortly before he was shot. Of those who provided witness statements some were named. Others were provided with false names or monikers or not named at all, presumably to protect their anonymity.
