Question about the Stephen Laurence investigation.

[Charlicat]

Re: Question about the Stephen Laurence investigation.

"Is it coz I iz black?"

The whole case condensed into a generic and overly used catchphrase. What have we become.

[Rhöna of the Rhein]

I touched on this subject in my dissertation (Double Jeopardy: Should Scots Law follow English lead?). Relatively long explanation coming up...

Basically there were two prosecutions against these men - a prosecution led by the Crown and a second private prosecution by the Lawrence family. As I understand it, the suspects were formally acquitted due to the unreliable identifications given by a main prosecution witness. Of course, this raised fears that a more effective police investigation would connect the same suspects to the murder, but they would be unreachable due to the protection offered to them by the then Double Jeopardy rule.

Upon invitation by the Home Secretary (Jack Straw, at the time), Sir William Macpherson of Cluny instigated an inquiry into the handling of the case by the Metropolitan Police and discussed the implications of the decisions:

‘If even at this late stage, fresh and viable evidence should emerge against any of the three suspects who were acquitted, they could not be tried again, however strong the evidence might be. We simply indicate that perhaps in modern conditions such absolute protection may sometimes lead to injustice…

The result of the unsuccessful prosecution was that the three men who were acquitted can never be tried again, even if final appeals for fresh witnesses were to bear fruit, or if the three men were to admit their guilt. Any change in the law in this respect would be solely a matter for Parliament. A suggestion made to us is that the Court of Appeal might be given jurisdiction to consider whether a second prosecution could be brought, particularly if fresh evidence supported such a course. The suggestion deserves examination.’ (The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 1999 para 7.46)

The upshot of this was a recommendation that ‘consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.’ (The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 1999 para 43.47)

The botched Stephen Lawrence enquiry is really one of the main reasons why Double Jeopardy law was changed in England and Wales (along with improved DNA technology). Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has enabled a relaxation of the Double Jeopardy rule in relation to those ‘qualifying offences’ listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 in the event of ‘new and compelling’ evidence being presented. This act has a retrospective action, so feasibly the trial could be reopened.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by J.M

maybe when the police arrested him for the murder of a young black male he retorted with "what? what nigger?"

just a thought

Except those of us who read the thread properly saw that he's claimed to have said it immediately prior to the attack. So unless the police are arresting him before he's done anything wrong, that possibility drops to zero.

[crusher]

they have found the people who did it, they just haven't managed to find sufficient evidence that they can produce in court. They have no doubts about who did it

No they havent, they found the people they suspect may have done it but since the court found no evidence on which a conviction could be safely delivered they had to find them INNOCENT !!!

In a court of law you walk free and become innocent, unless you are found guilty and have a penalty imposed ! a person is innocent until PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT !!!! since there were reasonable doubts they remained innocent. Because there were reasonable doubts they were not found guilty, therefore they are innocent of the crimes!

Simply because the police say they did it doesnt mean they did it !
The prisons are brimming with people the police fitted up to get a conviction so they wouldnt be ridiculed in the press and on TV

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by crusher

they were not found guilty, therefore they are innocent of the crimes!

what absolute rot.

by your logic, only somebody who has been found guilty in court can be guilty of a crime.


but nobody has been found guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence; so by your logic nobody is guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence.

and yet, someobody did murder Stephen Lawrence.

your train of thought could only be valid if there was not a single crime in the history of the world which had not been successfully prosecuted.

[thetruemayhem]

Originally Posted by crusher

Simply because the police say they did it doesnt mean they did it !
The prisons are brimming with people the police fitted up to get a conviction so they wouldnt be ridiculed in the press and on TV

Just like the streets of east London are no-less brimming with people who have got off with awful crimes due to police corruption.

And simply because some bent coppers were in David Norris's dad's pocket doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

Here's what one person involved with the McPherson Inquiry had to say on the subject a couple years back...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/.../post_275.html

t.

[Rhöna of the Rhein]

Originally Posted by J.M

am i right in thinking that is being abolished this year?

Nup. The Double Jeopardy laws have only been relaxed in England and Wales - it's not an outright abolition.

In Scotland the Double Jeopardy rule is in existence in its entirety but that is liable to change. Scottish Ministers have invited the Scottish Law Commission to re-examine this doctrine and will be releasing their findings in 'as early as practicable 2009'

It wouldn't surprise me if they recommend a similar relaxation of the law, but this would be the wrong decision in my view. It's a concept which has served us well for over 800 years and any retrial would have serious human rights concerns (particularly in relation to a person's right to a fair trial). My suggestion is really that we should reexamine the perjury laws... but that's another kettle of fish.

[crusher]

what absolute rot.

by your logic, only somebody who has been found guilty in court can be guilty of a crime.

Absolutely !!! When talking of guilt and innocence in legal terms that is exacly the case! One is innocent until proven guillty and if one is not found guilty then under the law one is innocent until proven guilty ! Totally and by your logic we will have people found guilty before being tried at a court of law - not a world most people here would prefer to live in I suspect ! That is the beauty of the British legal system - we are not "guilty till proven innocent" but innocent till proven guilty

but nobody has been found guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence; so by your logic nobody is guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence.

Obviously someone is guilty of murdering him, but PROVING it is another matter. If you cannot prove it then whoever you try to blame is innocent. How about if the police came to your place tonight and arrested you. We would have a great time here speculating on your guilt, and theres even a few would bet all they got you did it, but I would prefer to wait till it was PROVEN you did it - otherwise what is the point in having a court of law we may as well just have them cunts in blue say "yeah he did it all right we got our man" ok so the police got the right person and you dont need a court of law because they never lie lets cut out the middle man and have the police execute them fuckers !!! Lets just abolish courts and have whoever the police think is a criminal or who they lie about executed

your train of thought could only be valid if there was not a single crime in the history of the world which had not been successfully prosecuted.

Man, smoke weed that is not outside your capacity to handle. Your present stash is much too strong for you !

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by djtoast

what absolute rot.

by your logic, only somebody who has been found guilty in court can be guilty of a crime.

Bit of equivocation going on here Toastie. No ones is guilty of the crime of killing Steven Lawrence (stricty speaking), although that is not to deny that somebody our there murderred him.

[thetruemayhem]

Originally Posted by supernothing

No ones is guilty of the crime of killing Steven Lawrence (stricty speaking).

No-one's been FOUND guilty of murdering him, but there has to be a guilty party (or parties) out there somewhere.

t.

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by thetruemayhem

No-one's been FOUND guilty of murdering him, but there has to be a guilty party (or parties) out there somewhere.

t.

Of course, unless he stabbed himself multiple times, which we can all be fairly certain didn't happen. I was just pointing out that they're disagreement was between a moral and legal conceptions of guilt.