Posted By wify
I can't see how shooting someone is elf n safety issue ?

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Wify

If you read the report on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069796.stm
this states that "London's Metropolitan police force has been found guilty of endangering the public over the shooting dead of a man officers mistook for a suicide bomber".

Posted By Robert K Lewis
We had this discussion at the time of charge. For me it is a proper use of section 3 and it is time that all deaths in custody were treated under this section.- Remember Mr De Menenzes was restrained and then shot. At the moment of restraint he was technically in custody.

Bob

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Bob

With respect, I think you are 'nit picking.' Mr Demenzes was a suspect (wrongly as it turns out) and not being detained as we know it.

I do agree that there should have been some punitive measures against the police over this dreadful incident. The Commander responsible for the operation has since been promoted - what sort of message does this send out! I cannot agree that prosecuting someone for a health and safety offence is justice in this particular case. Indeed, smacks of second prize to me.

On a different note, I wonder what the main considerations of the jury were? After all, they are unlikely to have an in-depth knowledge of health and safety matters. Would they have found individuals guilty of manslaughter I wonder?

Regards

Ray

Posted By Brigham
Whether it's right or wrong to use HASAW for this event, I can't for the life of me believe for one minute that when the law was passed, the spirit of it was meant to encompass this sad event.
I firmly believe that because of this verdict, we are more at risk of terrorist attack and H&S has taken another body blow in the PR war.
Are we now being driven by idealists with no clue of the real world issues that we, to an extent have created and are we now overwhelmed with a guilt complex?

Posted By Robert K Lewis
RR

A single one off failure leading to a death is potentially a breach as much as an ongoing systematic failure. The use of sec 3 does not require continuing failure to create an offence.

I believe in this case the police failed but not in the systematic manner that would be required for a corporate manslaughter verdict necessarily. As for individual gross negligence manslaughter this was considered and ruled out by the CPS because the evidence did not point that way.

We need to be very careful that we are not seen to call for a public policy that states we will ignore offences by public bodies when someone dies because we cannot prove the maximum potential offence. The jury has made the verdict - the law was broken and the CPS were correct to enforce the law and prosecute.

Bob

Posted By db123
This was a missuse of H&S legislation. The CPS used the HSWA because they knew that they could not bring a successful prosecution under any other legislation.

The family still feel that justice has not been done, the tax payer has shelled out £3.5m in the cost of bringing the trial. Then there's the fine and costs to be added on.

Blair still won't resign and no officers on the day have been found culpable.

A public enquiry would hav emade more sense. The closest we are going to get to that is the MPA report which will hopefully be out in a few days. Perhaps then someone will accept responsibility for what was a bungled operation.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I am concerned here that many people think that we should not have prosecuted the poilic because they had only been in breach of health and safety legislation, or because we could not get them on a more "serious" charge. Whatever is said the police have been found guilty of the H&S offence and the prosecution was thus absolutely justified. The fact that other serious charges could not be pressed through lack of evidence is totally irrelevant. I would have hoped that even if another serious charge had been pressed then the S3 would also have been pressed as an additional charge. Even with the new corporate killing bill I trust that S2 or 3 charges will be additionally brought before the jury such that all offences can be dealt with at one trial.

Bob

Posted By Brigham
Just think of fallout if the decision was taken not to press home the attack and the "victim" was a terrorist and he succesfully set a device off! Would there have been a S.3 prosecution then?

Posted By ITK
Does IOSH have an official statement on this.

Posted By ITK
The 19 failings are here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7073286.stm

Posted By ITK
Bob, I fully agree with you.

ITK

Posted By ITK
Rob, so you believe the Met are exempt from HASAWA and can put members of the public at risk as long as the end justifies the means?

Why did they allow him on 2 buses then into a tube station?

Posted By R Joe
Most of the coverage I've seen / heard has questioned, not confirmed the use of H&S legislation in this case. This includes the family of the victim who want individuals to be accountable (the issue of someone senior being seen to 'take responsibility' - which is not the same as being legally culpable but is understandably rolled into the same debate) and David Lamy MP who on Question Time suggested that had Corporate Manslaughter been in place this would have been an appropriate response.

Taking this last point, the first 2 of the 19 failures do seem to be 'senior management failures' and were clearly an essential part of the causal chain. With this in mind - and what would appear to be a public generally who would have been far happier to see the Met prosecuted for Corporate Manslaughter (after which I suspect Sir Ian Blair would have had to resign), it would be interesting to reflect, more on why the new test for Corporate Manslaughter would not have been met had this been availabe, viz:

'In summary, an organisation is guilty of the offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the deceased. A substantial part of the breach must have been in the way activities were managed by senior management.'

If it wouldn’t, aren’t these the sort of circumstances that the new act is intended to capture? Corporate Manslaughter is not H&S law, but is complementary to it.

RJ

Posted By Rob T
Once a "target" has been identified, then he is no longer a normal member of the public and if necessary can be shot in protection of the public. They made a mistake in their identification, simple as that. If they had sprayed rounds in amongst members of the public there may be a case to answer under the legislation as that would be a disregard to the safety of the public at large. I do love the hindsight brigade!

If someone has been killed illegally then do them under the manslaughter or murder legislation not under the Mickey Mouse (in this case) section 3. It's not as if the H&S professionals and HSE haven't been pushing for manslaughter cases to cope with deaths in our industry. Does it just change to suit you? Do you just want "someone" done for this on the basis that you have political views? Personally I would hope that the police would continue to put the greater public safety as their priority rather than hesitate and have a tube full of blown up victims.

Oh by the way, I was on the Russel Square tube just after the bomb went off and I saw what it did to those poor people.

Once again, hindsight is useless but as you obviously feel that you know better than the police - I suggest you go and join them and give them the benefit of your experience. Could you make any of those decisions under that kind of stress?

Posted By Colin Reeves
ITK

"Rob, so you believe the Met are exempt from HASAWA and can put members of the public at risk as long as the end justifies the means?"

I have looked at the 19 points. remember this was just after several bombs had exploded in the capital with massive carnage. The situation was chaotic and resources stretched to beyond reasonable limits.

In the event there was an inaccurate identification, but that is preferable to another few bombs maiming and killing the public.

This prosecution was poorly considered - dynamic risk assessments yes, but do not take too much time as bombs do not wait for full planning and assessments! "Oh, excuse me Mr Terrorist, can you wait until I do a full assessment of the situation."

Colin

Posted By ITK
Colin,

"In the event there was an inaccurate identification, but that is preferable to another few bombs maiming and killing the public"

Why was he allowed out of the flat, allowed on 2 buses, then allowed into a tube station if he was a suspected suicide bomber.

The Met put members of the public at risk by doing this and it would seem the CPS and the jury agree.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I cannot accept that a pre-planned surveillance operation could have been so badly managed that even SO19 were not present until many hours after it was requested and the so called target was well into the tube station before they actually got through the door. Jean Charles was not even positively identified as the suspect and the photos show marked differences. The Gold Commander did not even know there was no positive ID - it was all suppostion.

There cannot be prosecutions where the evidence is too weak - however why on earth do the critics believe that the police are exempt from legislation. The trial demonstrates that it was right to put the case. Unfortunately this debate is actually suggesting that the police did nothing wrong in their actions.

As for CM the new legislation might well have been useable if it had been in force but unfortunately the Labour government fought so bitterly to exclude death in custody that it was delayed for some months and as a consequence the new law could not be applied. At least the trial would have decidied whether the management system was so weak as to be a gross breach of the duty of care - in this case a section 3 duty.

A CM conviction must also sureley contain a section 2 or 3 breach as well. The evidence for both charges is the same. There is no reason in law why both charges could not be then laid before the courts and both penalised on conviction.

This is nothing to do with mickey mouse laws or political shennanigans, it is the law being applied fairly and without bias to a situation in which an innocent bystander, JC Da M, was killed by our police acting on poor communications and information.

I would also refer people to the family statement outside of the courts. They expressed a degree of satisfaction at the conviction and stated it was the start of a long journey to justice. Perhaps it is people who claim that the case should not be brought who are bringing the profession into public disrepute. We need to be careful that we do not get identified with an elite group who are out of step with the public in general who feel it was right for the police to be convicted for their actions. The chattering establishment clearly do not want to be accountable for their failings.

Bob

Posted By Jimmy R
Brigham,
I don't agree. There are similarities with both campaign's, especially Iraq. If you look at the facts and figures it could be easily argued that PIRA posed a greater threat to public safety in their hay day and that Iraqi fighters pose a far greater threat to Iraqi civilians and British service personnel than the threat in and around our capital. We still were not allowed to chase them and slot them unless there was clear and imminent danger to ourselves or others.

Posted By Colin Reeves
I must agree with PH. Whatever the legalistic view of the justification of this prosecution, the result is certain. There will be more deaths as the police will be afraid to act to do their job, i.e protecting the public as a whole.

Colin