|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 23, 2024 10:11:04 GMT
The whole saga just sums up the parlous state that modern society finds itself in. *copper shoots unarmed man *in the absence of facts being available, and the modern human having no patience, people come to own conclusions and it becomes a national scandal about police violence on innocent victim *after 2 years copper is exonerated *facts finally come out *people are so entrenched in their positions once learning that 'innocent victim' was in fact an armed drug gang enforcer, the case still remains about police violence rather then re-evaluate own position And repeat ad nauseum to any given situation. Kaba's character wasn't on Trial and whatever he may have done in the past is totally irrelevant. The only thing that was relevant is what happened on the night of Kaba's shooting The IOPC investigated and passed a file to the CPS who believed it met the threshold for charging That is the Law for Blake and for every other citizen. A Jury of Blake's peers found him to be innocent of the charges and he was released Those who support Blake or Kaba and who try to make more of it than that disrespect the rule of law. Police including Firearms Officers carry out a difficult job, the vast majority to the best of their ability, some not so much. If Police are given a pass that they are not subject to the laws of the land, they become vigilantes Some have commented on the length of time 2 years the case took to get to Court and is a valid point but is symptomatic of the chronically underfunded Criminal Justice system. It is not unusual for a victim of rape or a person wrongly accused of rape to wait 4 years before a Court date finally arrives. They too have their lives disrupted innocent of guilty, their mental health challenged and extended to their families. The Criminal Justice system we have has evolved over many years, of course it can be improved especially in funding as Justice delayed is Justice Denied but those on whatever side of the fence wish to make exceptions and rule changes will lead us down a very dark path. Edit: If I had seen CBUFAWKIPWH's post who has said practically the same thing I could have saved myself the trouble |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 10:52:25 GMT
It wasn’t an execution. His background was irrelevant to the case but it would add to the state of mind and dangers facing the police For some idiot to tweet about assumptions and for Huddy to retweet it on here to get a reaction does nothing good But play with guns expect to get shot The point was made is that he was unarmed at the time of his death. And I didn't post it to get a reaction. its irrelevant that he was unarmed at the time of his death the police knew he had been involved in a shooting a few nights before, the police knew the car he was in was involved in a shooting the night before with that information they had good reason to believe that he was armed. he was also attempting or the police believed he was attempting to use a vehicle as a weponn all added together it was a reasonable and successful defence in this case that the policeman believed his life or th elife of his colleagues was in danger. the guy tweeting this bollocks knows nothing and if you were not provoking a reaction i think you should read and digest every tweet you post on here as it often leave syou open or with a bit of egg on your face |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 10:54:17 GMT
The met are not reading the room to suggest armed police be exempt from trials However they should not name the officer in the case publicly until a guilty verdict I'm not sure that's what they are saying, when a conventional firearm is discharged in this country the officer is usually immediately suspended from his/her duty. They are put on admin/office duty at best suspended from all duty more often than not. There is then the investigation by the IOPC which can take years to complete, then the CPS are passed the information and they are questioning if the decision making has/ is influenced by external noise and by public opinion. There is no basis in law to charge on the basis of PR. I think they are making the point that the evidence wasn't there to justify a murder charge in this case which will no doubt undermine subsequent responses to similar incidents and change the effectness of the officers. Having only seen what has been released I agree there was imho no realistic chance of conviction. Granted that is based on what little I know of the case but I understand the circumstances the officer was in, I understand to a degree (its been a few years out of the game) the legislation he was using and the defences he was using. There is section 76/3 of the Criminal justice and Immigration act that covers him in such circumstances and on that basis alone the case had a massive weakness if not completely blows it away. It deals with "hindsight" under spit second decision that could have massive implications for the suspect and the force used against the suspect even if the circumstances turn out to be wrong. That's just one piece of legislation protecting him never mind common law and numerous other legislation. When all this is taken into account officers quite rightly will feel uneasy that with such protection in place they are still under the threat of Court cases that legally are unwarranted and unjustified based on evidence. Now if an officer has clearly broken the law then fair enough. This is just my opinion of course and im by no means an expert 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 23, 2024 11:18:38 GMT
The point was made is that he was unarmed at the time of his death. And I didn't post it to get a reaction. its irrelevant that he was unarmed at the time of his death the police knew he had been involved in a shooting a few nights before, the police knew the car he was in was involved in a shooting the night before with that information they had good reason to believe that he was armed. he was also attempting or the police believed he was attempting to use a vehicle as a weponn all added together it was a reasonable and successful defence in this case that the policeman believed his life or th elife of his colleagues was in danger. the guy tweeting this bollocks knows nothing and if you were not provoking a reaction i think you should read and digest every tweet you post on here as it often leave syou open or with a bit of egg on your face Not me making unintelligent, emotional responses to how the law is applied, and that was my main point. He's been cleared, that should be the end of it now. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 11:29:11 GMT
The met are not reading the room to suggest armed police be exempt from trials However they should not name the officer in the case publicly until a guilty verdict I'm not sure that's what they are saying, when a conventional firearm is discharged in this country the officer is usually immediately suspended from his/her duty. They are put on admin/office duty at best suspended from all duty more often than not. There is then the investigation by the IOPC which can take years to complete, then the CPS are passed the information and they are questioning if the decision making has/ is influenced by external noise and by public opinion. There is no basis in law to charge on the basis of PR. I think they are making the point that the evidence wasn't there to justify a murder charge in this case which will no doubt undermine subsequent responses to similar incidents and change the effectness of the officers. Having only seen what has been released I agree there was imho no realistic chance of conviction. Granted that is based on what little I know of the case but I understand the circumstances the officer was in, I understand to a degree (its been a few years out of the game) the legislation he was using and the defences he was using. There is section 76/3 of the Criminal justice and Immigration act that covers him in such circumstances and on that basis alone the case had a massive weakness if not completely blows it away. It deals with "hindsight" under spit second decision that could have massive implications for the suspect and the force used against the suspect even if the circumstances turn out to be wrong. That's just one piece of legislation protecting him never mind common law and numerous other legislation. When all this is taken into account officers quite rightly will feel uneasy that with such protection in place they are still under the threat of Court cases that legally are unwarranted and unjustified based on evidence. Now if an officer has clearly broken the law then fair enough. This is just my opinion of course and im by no means an expert 🙂 it goes to show that the CPS with the appropriate poltical clout will still prosecute or not prosecute based not on the case but the ramifications or optics for want of two words. almost a show trial in this case or no trial in savilles case. two extreme examples in this case the evidence presented of which i understand the judge directed the jury should have made the cps not prosecute but the pressure may have been to have a trial just to show the community justice will be done even if they dont like the result - its still ruined this brave officer's life |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Oct 23, 2024 11:29:34 GMT
May I ask, do you have any in depth knowledge of police procedures around firearms, or do you know the lawyers or CPS associated with this case? Just trying to understand what evidence you know of that suggests protocol was not followed. It was widely reported that the bodycam video evidence did not align with the officer's statement about the incident. The very fact that the matter went to court indicates that the CPS decided protocols had been breached and there was a case to answer. The CPS will only prosecute if they believe there is a case to answer. I don't need special insight into firearms policy or the lawyers or the CPS associated with the case. All I'm doing is making the perfectly legitimate assumption that they are doing their job properly. It isn't me who needs to provide evidence of some special knowledge about this case it is those claiming that the CPS didn't have a case and prosecuted for political reasons rather than there being a case to answer There is absolutely no evidence for this. So it’s a no to both then and you are merely reporting what others have said. Just got the impression you were an authority on this, that’s all. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 23, 2024 11:53:20 GMT
The met are not reading the room to suggest armed police be exempt from trials However they should not name the officer in the case publicly until a guilty verdict I'm not sure that's what they are saying, when a conventional firearm is discharged in this country the officer is usually immediately suspended from his/her duty. They are put on admin/office duty at best suspended from all duty more often than not. There is then the investigation by the IOPC which can take years to complete, then the CPS are passed the information and they are questioning if the decision making has/ is influenced by external noise and by public opinion. There is no basis in law to charge on the basis of PR. I think they are making the point that the evidence wasn't there to justify a murder charge in this case which will no doubt undermine subsequent responses to similar incidents and change the effectness of the officers. Having only seen what has been released I agree there was imho no realistic chance of conviction. Granted that is based on what little I know of the case but I understand the circumstances the officer was in, I understand to a degree (its been a few years out of the game) the legislation he was using and the defences he was using. There is section 76/3 of the Criminal justice and Immigration act that covers him in such circumstances and on that basis alone the case had a massive weakness if not completely blows it away. It deals with "hindsight" under spit second decision that could have massive implications for the suspect and the force used against the suspect even if the circumstances turn out to be wrong. That's just one piece of legislation protecting him never mind common law and numerous other legislation. When all this is taken into account officers quite rightly will feel uneasy that with such protection in place they are still under the threat of Court cases that legally are unwarranted and unjustified based on evidence. Now if an officer has clearly broken the law then fair enough. This is just my opinion of course and im by no means an expert 🙂 I can agree with most of that being factual and perceptual but I disagree with your conclusions If the decision to charge by CPS was taken to satisfy Public Opinion then to quote a former Master of the Rolls " we have reached an appalling vista" and the Criminal Justice System would not be fit for purpose Section 76/3 relies on reasonableness of action. I have no idea how the Lawyer within CPS reached the decision to charge but I can only speculate that it may have been because Blake's first written account (he refused to give an oral account) was at variance to the video evidence. During the Trial Blake's defence explained this as "Perceptual Distortion". On balance maybe the CPS Lawyer made the decision that it should be tested in Court rather than making a decision him/her self. The problem like most things in UK is that Society has become polarised and people revert to taking sides depending on their world view endorsed in a vacuum by Social Media |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 11:59:47 GMT
The whole saga just sums up the parlous state that modern society finds itself in. *copper shoots unarmed man *in the absence of facts being available, and the modern human having no patience, people come to own conclusions and it becomes a national scandal about police violence on innocent victim *after 2 years copper is exonerated *facts finally come out *people are so entrenched in their positions once learning that 'innocent victim' was in fact an armed drug gang enforcer, the case still remains about police violence rather then re-evaluate own position And repeat ad nauseum to any given situation. Kaba's character wasn't on Trial and whatever he may have done in the past is totally irrelevant. The only thing that was relevant is what happened on the night of Kaba's shooting The IOPC investigated and passed a file to the CPS who believed it met the threshold for charging That is the Law for Blake and for every other citizen. A Jury of Blake's peers found him to be innocent of the charges and he was released Those who support Blake or Kaba and who try to make more of it than that disrespect the rule of law. Police including Firearms Officers carry out a difficult job, the vast majority to the best of their ability, some not so much. If Police are given a pass that they are not subject to the laws of the land, they become vigilantes Some have commented on the length of time 2 years the case took to get to Court and is a valid point but is symptomatic of the chronically underfunded Criminal Justice system. It is not unusual for a victim of rape or a person wrongly accused of rape to wait 4 years before a Court date finally arrives. They too have their lives disrupted innocent of guilty, their mental health challenged and extended to their families. The Criminal Justice system we have has evolved over many years, of course it can be improved especially in funding as Justice delayed is Justice Denied but those on whatever side of the fence wish to make exceptions and rule changes will lead us down a very dark path. Edit: If I had seen CBUFAWKIPWH's post who has said practically the same thing I could have saved myself the trouble agree with most of that it is very fair to say kaba's previous charachter was not on trial but its fair to say his actions and the car from the previous night were known to the officers and would have righly played a role in their thoughts and actions |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 23, 2024 12:06:04 GMT
This should replace the Homer Simpson backing into the hedge gif 😊
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Oct 23, 2024 12:08:05 GMT
I appreciate that bringing his previous into it would potentially give the jury cause to pre judge, but why was it fair the other way? If Blake had been found guilty and then it came out that Kaba was involved in the other shooting (as it has done) do you not think it would have been unfair against the officer? This other offence of Kaba’s wasn’t years old, but barely days.
In isolation an “innocent” man could have been shot dead when the reality is, he wasn’t innocent at all. It’s surely pertinent to the case and exactly why what happened, happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 23, 2024 12:19:30 GMT
Kaba's character wasn't on Trial and whatever he may have done in the past is totally irrelevant. The only thing that was relevant is what happened on the night of Kaba's shooting The IOPC investigated and passed a file to the CPS who believed it met the threshold for charging That is the Law for Blake and for every other citizen. A Jury of Blake's peers found him to be innocent of the charges and he was released Those who support Blake or Kaba and who try to make more of it than that disrespect the rule of law. Police including Firearms Officers carry out a difficult job, the vast majority to the best of their ability, some not so much. If Police are given a pass that they are not subject to the laws of the land, they become vigilantes Some have commented on the length of time 2 years the case took to get to Court and is a valid point but is symptomatic of the chronically underfunded Criminal Justice system. It is not unusual for a victim of rape or a person wrongly accused of rape to wait 4 years before a Court date finally arrives. They too have their lives disrupted innocent of guilty, their mental health challenged and extended to their families. The Criminal Justice system we have has evolved over many years, of course it can be improved especially in funding as Justice delayed is Justice Denied but those on whatever side of the fence wish to make exceptions and rule changes will lead us down a very dark path. Edit: If I had seen CBUFAWKIPWH's post who has said practically the same thing I could have saved myself the trouble agree with most of that it is very fair to say kaba's previous charachter was not on trial but its fair to say his actions and the car from the previous night were known to the officers and would have righly played a role in their thoughts and actions Except the Police didn't know who was driving the car, I didn't correct a previous post of yours that said the Police knew kaba has been involved in the shooting incident (discharge of a shotgun) the previous evening because I agreed with the essence of your post. In fact the Police issued a Statement at the time to say Kaba was not under suspicion for the event. To a large extent the point is moot as the Car was the subject of Police attention and they had every reason to suspect it may have contained a shotgun. I may be wrong but from what I have read very little emphasis was placed on this during the trial presumably because no weapon was found and de facto the Car became the weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 12:19:51 GMT
apple.news/AH9_lXoBdTG-gvHegCOvnzwThis gang and others are the ones that will run the streets if the police are defunded like some wish. If they think that will lead to safer streets they’re very much mistaken. My thoughts really do go out to Martyn Blake. There’s a lot of people who need holding to account for these threats to his life. - politicians and press for turning this into a witch hunt - the judge who decided to name him - senior officers for not backing him till it’s to late - Kaba’s family for not seeing or refusing to see who their son is and rather than taking the heat off the anger in the community continuing to say they want justice what ever that is. - Those activists that drilled up hate purely because of who the main parties involved were. choosing to ignore the history of Kaba even now when it’s known. This could potentially turn very nasty now for the Met police officers and put not just Mr Blake but others at risk from this gang. I think only very, very few people actually want to defund the police. And I think very few people will hold the police to blame for what led to this man’s death. Tiny minorities of irrelevance. I’ve seen it a fair few times in the past on here. The attitude was very different towards the officer on the original thread too. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 23, 2024 12:27:34 GMT
I think only very, very few people actually want to defund the police. And I think very few people will hold the police to blame for what led to this man’s death. Tiny minorities of irrelevance. I’ve seen it a fair few times in the past on here. The attitude was very different towards the officer on the original thread too. My recollection, certainly my position, was that the law should take its course and Kaba's character and previous conviction had no relevance |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 12:35:06 GMT
I’ve seen it a fair few times in the past on here. The attitude was very different towards the officer on the original thread too. My recollection, certainly my position, was that the law should take its course and Kaba's character and previous conviction had no relevance This wasn’t a dig at you specifically but time to move on. I think we can all agree the result was right and Kaba was the person I always thought he was. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 12:38:56 GMT
I'm not sure that's what they are saying, when a conventional firearm is discharged in this country the officer is usually immediately suspended from his/her duty. They are put on admin/office duty at best suspended from all duty more often than not. There is then the investigation by the IOPC which can take years to complete, then the CPS are passed the information and they are questioning if the decision making has/ is influenced by external noise and by public opinion. There is no basis in law to charge on the basis of PR. I think they are making the point that the evidence wasn't there to justify a murder charge in this case which will no doubt undermine subsequent responses to similar incidents and change the effectness of the officers. Having only seen what has been released I agree there was imho no realistic chance of conviction. Granted that is based on what little I know of the case but I understand the circumstances the officer was in, I understand to a degree (its been a few years out of the game) the legislation he was using and the defences he was using. There is section 76/3 of the Criminal justice and Immigration act that covers him in such circumstances and on that basis alone the case had a massive weakness if not completely blows it away. It deals with "hindsight" under spit second decision that could have massive implications for the suspect and the force used against the suspect even if the circumstances turn out to be wrong. That's just one piece of legislation protecting him never mind common law and numerous other legislation. When all this is taken into account officers quite rightly will feel uneasy that with such protection in place they are still under the threat of Court cases that legally are unwarranted and unjustified based on evidence. Now if an officer has clearly broken the law then fair enough. This is just my opinion of course and im by no means an expert 🙂 I can agree with most of that being factual and perceptual but I disagree with your conclusions If the decision to charge by CPS was taken to satisfy Public Opinion then to quote a former Master of the Rolls " we have reached an appalling vista" and the Criminal Justice System would not be fit for purpose Section 76/3 relies on reasonableness of action. I have no idea how the Lawyer within CPS reached the decision to charge but I can only speculate that it may have been because Blake's first written account (he refused to give an oral account) was at variance to the video evidence. During the Trial Blake's defence explained this as "Perceptual Distortion". On balance maybe the CPS Lawyer made the decision that it should be tested in Court rather than making a decision him/her self. The problem like most things in UK is that Society has become polarised and people revert to taking sides depending on their world view endorsed in a vacuum by Social Media I think we're all speculating but a couple of things. Choosing written evidence over oral is not a refusal so I'm not sure that would have any bearing on a charge, he would have been served papers and given options and time limit to provide his evidence. He has options of both and both are perfectly acceptable. Section 76/3 does cover reasonableness, but it also covers mistakes in a person's belief that that force was reasonable after the fact as long as at the time the belief is honestly held and that is to be relied on (4) and that he was acting in self defence and Common law(8). I agree that potentially discrepancies could have had a bearing on a charge but again that's understandable given a fast moving dynamic incident considering he would also have waited some time to make his statement. Unless he has an incredibly good memory all perfectly reasonable to make some mistakes so inho that's not a good enough reason to charge obviously that's assuming there were no provable lies in that statement which there doesn't appear to be. I think you're right whoever made that decision decided to let the courts decide which is the issue the CPS should have the gumption to charge on evidence not for fear. I don't know who's right but my conclusion is that it wasn't based on evidence more of arse covering but of course that's just my opinion and of course I maybe completely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 12:46:47 GMT
I appreciate that bringing his previous into it would potentially give the jury cause to pre judge, but why was it fair the other way? If Blake had been found guilty and then it came out that Kaba was involved in the other shooting (as it has done) do you not think it would have been unfair against the officer? This other offence of Kaba’s wasn’t years old, but barely days. In isolation an “innocent” man could have been shot dead when the reality is, he wasn’t innocent at all. It’s surely pertinent to the case and exactly why what happened, happened. That is an excellent point Police Officers have to disclose any discipline issues on court files. There is a specific form for it so what's good for the goose etc. If he had survived they probably would have been able to use it as part of "bad character" evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 23, 2024 12:55:23 GMT
The CPS decide whether there is a case to be answered or not. It is not up to them to decide whether the someone is guilty or innocent and they certainly shouldn't be making decisions on whether to prosecute based on the character and past actions of those involved. To be honest given the way you think the law should work you would never be allowed to serve on a jury - in fact you would be instructed to approach the role completely differently to the way you think it should work. The character and past convictions of those involved in a case are irrelevant. It is the evidence directly pertaining to the case at hand that matters. In this case if the evidence demonstrated that the officer had broken protocol and unlawfully killed this man he should and would be found guilty regardless of the fact that the man he killed was known to be dangerous and violent. Equally if the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of unlawful killing he should and would have been found not guilty even if he had a track record of reckless use of his firearms (and I am not suggesting that is what happened here). That is how the law works. Interesting you mention this, the courts and legal system isn't fit for purpose and I said exactly this on my jury nomination form. Of which my attendance was exempted! And my initial point still stands. The CPS should have made the decision there was no case to answer based on the knowledge and facts they had. I never said they should find someone guilty or innocent. A 3hr jury return for such a major case clearly suggests the matter should never have got to trial stage! Hence my views mentioned above! To be honest it doesn't surprise me one bit you were exempted from jury service. The CPS clearly had relevant evidence - it was presented in court and the jury made a decision based on the evidence. If there was no evidence the case would not have been heard and if the "evidence" wasn't relevant the defence would have pointed it out and the judge would have ruled it inadmissible. If there was no evidence presented the jury would not even have had to have made a decision. In effect you are saying the CPS should be judge and jury. You are saying that it is them who should make the decision to ignore the evidence or effectively find in favour of the defendant and throw out the case. Your idea of how the law should work makes a mockery of the rule of law. You are basically side linling the courts and putting decisions onto appointed officials rather than a jury. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 23, 2024 12:58:33 GMT
The whole saga just sums up the parlous state that modern society finds itself in. *copper shoots unarmed man *in the absence of facts being available, and the modern human having no patience, people come to own conclusions and it becomes a national scandal about police violence on innocent victim *after 2 years copper is exonerated *facts finally come out *people are so entrenched in their positions once learning that 'innocent victim' was in fact an armed drug gang enforcer, the case still remains about police violence rather then re-evaluate own position And repeat ad nauseum to any given situation. Kaba's character wasn't on Trial and whatever he may have done in the past is totally irrelevant. The only thing that was relevant is what happened on the night of Kaba's shooting The IOPC investigated and passed a file to the CPS who believed it met the threshold for charging That is the Law for Blake and for every other citizen. A Jury of Blake's peers found him to be innocent of the charges and he was released Those who support Blake or Kaba and who try to make more of it than that disrespect the rule of law. Police including Firearms Officers carry out a difficult job, the vast majority to the best of their ability, some not so much. If Police are given a pass that they are not subject to the laws of the land, they become vigilantes Some have commented on the length of time 2 years the case took to get to Court and is a valid point but is symptomatic of the chronically underfunded Criminal Justice system. It is not unusual for a victim of rape or a person wrongly accused of rape to wait 4 years before a Court date finally arrives. They too have their lives disrupted innocent of guilty, their mental health challenged and extended to their families. The Criminal Justice system we have has evolved over many years, of course it can be improved especially in funding as Justice delayed is Justice Denied but those on whatever side of the fence wish to make exceptions and rule changes will lead us down a very dark path. Edit: If I had seen CBUFAWKIPWH's post who has said practically the same thing I could have saved myself the trouble It's worth repeating because there are still some people who really don't understand how the law is supposed to work and this is a pretty much a textbook case of how it should work. |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 13:15:25 GMT
I appreciate that bringing his previous into it would potentially give the jury cause to pre judge, but why was it fair the other way? If Blake had been found guilty and then it came out that Kaba was involved in the other shooting (as it has done) do you not think it would have been unfair against the officer? This other offence of Kaba’s wasn’t years old, but barely days. In isolation an “innocent” man could have been shot dead when the reality is, he wasn’t innocent at all. It’s surely pertinent to the case and exactly why what happened, happened. Absolutely this.. Kabas previous convictions/allegations were material and pertinent to this case without a shadow of a doubt. It would have showed Kaba had been not afraid to use lethal violence in the past and definitely the potential to kill again, whether it be by using a firearm, a knife or utilising a running vehicle as his weapon of choice. The prosecutor described Blake as acting disproportionately in shooting & said he was angry and frustrated that Kaba had been failing to stop for them and had only been traveling at speeds of 12mph prior to being shot! Bearing in mind the CPS would have been watching this footage and reading through the evidence from a nice warm office with cups of tea whilst coming to their conclusions, the officer was in there in the moment and making a split second decision he believed to be the correct one and one that he ultimately thought would stop Kaba accelerating away taking him or a colleague under the wheels with him. The main point of the trial was to determine Sgt Blakes motives and intentions. Surely knowing what Kabas motives and intentions were at that same time would have been the balance required to even the evidential process up. How is Kabas previous not relevant to this? I can guarantee Sgt Blake would have been asked how long he'd been a firearms officer for and what if any experience he had got of using a firearm aside from training requirements. As it happened it mattered not anyway as the Jury clearly didn't require any further evidence or convincing of what Kabas motives were, & those of Sgt Blake. Clearly the correct decision and outcome was achieved, but there was nothing to say the 12 wouldn't have been baffled by the CPS's spin and thought that Sgt Blake was guilty. Then this conversation will have been far more pertinent. Fine balance to be struck but an important one to be reached none the less.. |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 13:20:05 GMT
Interesting you mention this, the courts and legal system isn't fit for purpose and I said exactly this on my jury nomination form. Of which my attendance was exempted! And my initial point still stands. The CPS should have made the decision there was no case to answer based on the knowledge and facts they had. I never said they should find someone guilty or innocent. A 3hr jury return for such a major case clearly suggests the matter should never have got to trial stage! Hence my views mentioned above! To be honest it doesn't surprise me one bit you were exempted from jury service. The CPS clearly had relevant evidence - it was presented in court and the jury made a decision based on the evidence. If there was no evidence the case would not have been heard and if the "evidence" wasn't relevant the defence would have pointed it out and the judge would have ruled it inadmissible. If there was no evidence presented the jury would not even have had to have made a decision. In effect you are saying the CPS should be judge and jury. You are saying that it is them who should make the decision to ignore the evidence or effectively find in favour of the defendant and throw out the case. Your idea of how the law should work makes a mockery of the rule of law. You are basically side linling the courts and putting decisions onto appointed officials rather than a jury. Absolutely, of course the CPS act as judge and jury in many incidents/cases, that's their role to bring proper & meaningful cases to court to answer and bin off the ones that aren't worthy where evidence doesn't justify a trial. That's their primary role! It was the CPS who decided there was insufficient evidence (allegedly!) to charge Jimmy Saville & Al fayed amongst others with their henious offences. Surely the victims of their continued offences deserved a fair trial, never even got to court! For me on this one, they've buckled, scared of backlash and not wishing to justify their decision of no case no case to answer. You act very high and mighty on these discussions, for someone clearly not to see the main purpose and role of the CPS as there to filter out the cases that require a trial and those that don't doesn't really add up. |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Oct 23, 2024 13:23:46 GMT
The Home Secretary confirming FAOs will be granted anonymity up until the point of conviction under a new bill.
It seems ludicrous that this wasn’t the case in the first place. I honestly think the judge who lifted restrictions on Martyn Blake being identified has questions to answer. I can’t think of any reason why it is in public interest to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 13:25:46 GMT
The Home Secretary confirming FAOs will be granted anonymity up until the point of conviction under a new bill. It seems ludicrous that this wasn’t the case in the first place. I honestly think the judge who lifted restrictions on Martyn Blake being identified has questions to answer. I can’t think of any reason why it is in public interest to know. Was purely pressure from Kabas family. The judge will no doubt have been leaned on from above and bottled it. Easier to give in & take the course of less resistance than to stand up against the noisy minority. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 13:36:43 GMT
The Home Secretary confirming FAOs will be granted anonymity up until the point of conviction under a new bill. It seems ludicrous that this wasn’t the case in the first place. I honestly think the judge who lifted restrictions on Martyn Blake being identified has questions to answer. I can’t think of any reason why it is in public interest to know. Was purely pressure from Kabas family. The judge will no doubt have been leaned on from above and bottled it. Easier to give in & take the course of less resistance than to stand up against the noisy minority. That's the issue for me external pressure possibly having an influence on our justice system now I don't know the full details of the Kaba case but I does look like pressure on the Police, CPS and Courts influenced the matter I'm just relieved the jury in my eyes reached the correct decision. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 23, 2024 13:36:49 GMT
I can agree with most of that being factual and perceptual but I disagree with your conclusions If the decision to charge by CPS was taken to satisfy Public Opinion then to quote a former Master of the Rolls " we have reached an appalling vista" and the Criminal Justice System would not be fit for purpose Section 76/3 relies on reasonableness of action. I have no idea how the Lawyer within CPS reached the decision to charge but I can only speculate that it may have been because Blake's first written account (he refused to give an oral account) was at variance to the video evidence. During the Trial Blake's defence explained this as "Perceptual Distortion". On balance maybe the CPS Lawyer made the decision that it should be tested in Court rather than making a decision him/her self. The problem like most things in UK is that Society has become polarised and people revert to taking sides depending on their world view endorsed in a vacuum by Social Media I think we're all speculating but a couple of things. Choosing written evidence over oral is not a refusal so I'm not sure that would have any bearing on a charge, he would have been served papers and given options and time limit to provide his evidence. He has options of both and both are perfectly acceptable. Section 76/3 does cover reasonableness, but it also covers mistakes in a person's belief that that force was reasonable after the fact as long as at the time the belief is honestly held and that is to be relied on (4) and that he was acting in self defence and Common law(8). I agree that potentially discrepancies could have had a bearing on a charge but again that's understandable given a fast moving dynamic incident considering he would also have waited some time to make his statement. Unless he has an incredibly good memory all perfectly reasonable to make some mistakes so inho that's not a good enough reason to charge obviously that's assuming there were no provable lies in that statement which there doesn't appear to be. I think you're right whoever made that decision decided to let the courts decide which is the issue the CPS should have the gumption to charge on evidence not for fear. I don't know who's right but my conclusion is that it wasn't based on evidence more of arse covering but of course that's just my opinion and of course I maybe completely wrong. I wasn't implying Blake's decision to give a written account versus an oral one should have any reflection on him or the CPS should draw any inference from that. The only issue the CPS should consider was Blake's account consistent with the video evidence I deliberately quoted Denning in a previous infamous Appeal case because he at the time refused to believe that the system had been corrupted but admitted later he was wrong. I'm, perhaps naively, believing that the Criminal Justice System works but if I'm wrong and it's very possible, then we are in a very bad place. The Times is reporting that Sir Mark Rowley is calling for "sweeping exemptions" for Police Officers involved in shootings. I haven't seen Rowley saying that and I'd hazard a guess if questioned he may say his words were misinterpreted, but obviously he's making a Political Statement and trying to uphold the morale of the Police Force. www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/chris-kaba-shooting-martyn-blake-police-officer-hfkvsxjqkPersonally I think this is unhelpful to the Police and the Public because we often hear the phrase "Policing with Consent" and its undeniable that Public trust in the Police is low ( high profile cases get much attention, routine policing not so much) and this will only further polarise and give people the perception that there is a "Two-tier" system, another phrase much used recently. To me Labour's plan to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood Police and PCSOs can only be a good thing but that is just my perception not like you with former experience. Of course Governments tend to overpromise and underdeliver so we'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 13:44:19 GMT
agree with most of that it is very fair to say kaba's previous charachter was not on trial but its fair to say his actions and the car from the previous night were known to the officers and would have righly played a role in their thoughts and actions Except the Police didn't know who was driving the car, I didn't correct a previous post of yours that said the Police knew kaba has been involved in the shooting incident (discharge of a shotgun) the previous evening because I agreed with the essence of your post. In fact the Police issued a Statement at the time to say Kaba was not under suspicion for the event. To a large extent the point is moot as the Car was the subject of Police attention and they had every reason to suspect it may have contained a shotgun. I may be wrong but from what I have read very little emphasis was placed on this during the trial presumably because no weapon was found and de facto the Car became the weapon. Police officers did not know who was driving the Audi on the night Mr Kaba died, but they did know it had been used as a getaway car in another shooting in Brixton, south London, the night before. An automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) marker had been placed on the car, which alerted the police to it. the police knew the car was involved in a shooting incident and at the time the actions of the driver led the police to believe it was being used as a weapon fair game |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 13:45:10 GMT
The met are not reading the room to suggest armed police be exempt from trials However they should not name the officer in the case publicly until a guilty verdict The Homer Office minister has read my post |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 13:46:32 GMT
Was purely pressure from Kabas family. The judge will no doubt have been leaned on from above and bottled it. Easier to give in & take the course of less resistance than to stand up against the noisy minority. That's the issue for me external pressure possibly having an influence on our justice system now I don't know the full details of the Kaba case but I does look like pressure on the Police, CPS and Courts influenced the matter I'm just relieved the jury in my eyes reached the correct decision. Absolutely.. At the end of the day the famous quote comes in to play doesn't it, I'm sure Sgt Blake would have rather been tried by 12 than carried by 6. So long as that's always been his subconscious mindset from the outset, he'll be able to move on from option 1, option 2 would have been taken out of his hands.. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 13:58:15 GMT
I think we're all speculating but a couple of things. Choosing written evidence over oral is not a refusal so I'm not sure that would have any bearing on a charge, he would have been served papers and given options and time limit to provide his evidence. He has options of both and both are perfectly acceptable. Section 76/3 does cover reasonableness, but it also covers mistakes in a person's belief that that force was reasonable after the fact as long as at the time the belief is honestly held and that is to be relied on (4) and that he was acting in self defence and Common law(8). I agree that potentially discrepancies could have had a bearing on a charge but again that's understandable given a fast moving dynamic incident considering he would also have waited some time to make his statement. Unless he has an incredibly good memory all perfectly reasonable to make some mistakes so inho that's not a good enough reason to charge obviously that's assuming there were no provable lies in that statement which there doesn't appear to be. I think you're right whoever made that decision decided to let the courts decide which is the issue the CPS should have the gumption to charge on evidence not for fear. I don't know who's right but my conclusion is that it wasn't based on evidence more of arse covering but of course that's just my opinion and of course I maybe completely wrong. I wasn't implying Blake's decision to give a written account versus an oral one should have any reflection on him or the CPS should draw any inference from that. The only issue the CPS should consider was Blake's account consistent with the video evidence I deliberately quoted Denning in a previous infamous Appeal case because he at the time refused to believe that the system had been corrupted but admitted later he was wrong. I'm, perhaps naively, believing that the Criminal Justice System works but if I'm wrong and it's very possible, then we are in a very bad place. The Times is reporting that Sir Mark Rowley is calling for "sweeping exemptions" for Police Officers involved in shootings. I haven't seen Rowley saying that and I'd hazard a guess if questioned he may say his words were misinterpreted, but obviously he's making a Political Statement and trying to uphold the morale of the Police Force. www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/chris-kaba-shooting-martyn-blake-police-officer-hfkvsxjqkPersonally I think this is unhelpful to the Police and the Public because we often hear the phrase "Policing with Consent" and its undeniable that Public trust in the Police is low ( high profile cases get much attention, routine policing not so much) and this will only further polarise and give people the perception that there is a "Two-tier" system, another phrase much used recently. To me Labour's plan to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood Police and PCSOs can only be a good thing but that is just my perception not like you with former experience. Of course Governments tend to overpromise and underdeliver so we'll see. I think we're in agreement on most what I would say is that of course I accept the CPS DPP would have seen something contained within the body of evidence and of course if that's the case then absolutely a charge was correct, ive just not seen anything to clarify the reasons behind that charge either during or afterwards and formed an opinion on snippets i have seen which I believe undermined the case. I just think it was wafer thin and doomed and the subsequent release of the footage reinforced my opinion, imo it could have been avoided but it's done now. It didn't help that the prosecution banged on about him having a bad day and being angry that's just rubbish and trying to muddy the water. I genuinely would have loved to have been privy to the case I find it fascinating I'm slightly envious of friends and family chosen to attend cases in crown court. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 23, 2024 14:02:36 GMT
Except the Police didn't know who was driving the car, I didn't correct a previous post of yours that said the Police knew kaba has been involved in the shooting incident (discharge of a shotgun) the previous evening because I agreed with the essence of your post. In fact the Police issued a Statement at the time to say Kaba was not under suspicion for the event. To a large extent the point is moot as the Car was the subject of Police attention and they had every reason to suspect it may have contained a shotgun. I may be wrong but from what I have read very little emphasis was placed on this during the trial presumably because no weapon was found and de facto the Car became the weapon. Police officers did not know who was driving the Audi on the night Mr Kaba died, but they did know it had been used as a getaway car in another shooting in Brixton, south London, the night before. An automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) marker had been placed on the car, which alerted the police to it. the police knew the car was involved in a shooting incident and at the time the actions of the driver led the police to believe it was being used as a weapon fair game Which is NOW exactly what I said You previously said: " the police knew he had been involved in a shooting a few nights before, the police knew the car he was in was involved in a shooting the night before"This is not correct because the Police didn't know who was driving the car, the second part is correct |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 23, 2024 14:05:48 GMT
I'm not sure that's what they are saying, when a conventional firearm is discharged in this country the officer is usually immediately suspended from his/her duty. They are put on admin/office duty at best suspended from all duty more often than not. There is then the investigation by the IOPC which can take years to complete, then the CPS are passed the information and they are questioning if the decision making has/ is influenced by external noise and by public opinion. There is no basis in law to charge on the basis of PR. I think they are making the point that the evidence wasn't there to justify a murder charge in this case which will no doubt undermine subsequent responses to similar incidents and change the effectness of the officers. Having only seen what has been released I agree there was imho no realistic chance of conviction. Granted that is based on what little I know of the case but I understand the circumstances the officer was in, I understand to a degree (its been a few years out of the game) the legislation he was using and the defences he was using. There is section 76/3 of the Criminal justice and Immigration act that covers him in such circumstances and on that basis alone the case had a massive weakness if not completely blows it away. It deals with "hindsight" under spit second decision that could have massive implications for the suspect and the force used against the suspect even if the circumstances turn out to be wrong. That's just one piece of legislation protecting him never mind common law and numerous other legislation. When all this is taken into account officers quite rightly will feel uneasy that with such protection in place they are still under the threat of Court cases that legally are unwarranted and unjustified based on evidence. Now if an officer has clearly broken the law then fair enough. This is just my opinion of course and im by no means an expert 🙂 it goes to show that the CPS with the appropriate poltical clout will still prosecute or not prosecute based not on the case but the ramifications or optics for want of two words. almost a show trial in this case or no trial in savilles case. two extreme examples in this case the evidence presented of which i understand the judge directed the jury should have made the cps not prosecute but the pressure may have been to have a trial just to show the community justice will be done even if they dont like the result - its still ruined this brave officer's life Or in the case of thousands of young women not prosecute in the name of social cohesion |
|
