Human Rights ~ Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights has handed down judgment in James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom - Judgment.   It concerns three men who were given Indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection - "IPP."   So, what had these men been up to?

The offences:

James - On 28 September 2005 Mr James pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to unlawful wounding with intent. He had previous convictions for, among other things, battery, common assault, affray, disorderly behaviour, racially abusive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A pre-sentencing report dated 27 September 2005 prepared by the Probation Service referred to the offence forming part of a pattern of violence and threatening behaviour largely linked to Mr James’ excessive drinking. It recommended counselling to address alcohol and substance abuse. The sentencing judge accepted that Mr James was dangerous, particularly when he drank alcohol. He was sentenced to an IPP sentence pursuant to section 225 of the 2003 Act, with a tariff of two years, less time spent on remand. His tariff therefore expired one year and 295 days after the date of sentencing.

Abortion ~ R v Sarah Louise Catt

Procuring miscarriage is a criminal offence which carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.  The Offences against the Person Act 1861 section 58:

Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion. 

Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . .[to imprisonment for life].

At the Crown Court sitting at Leeds, Sarah Louise Catt pleaded guilty to this offence and was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.  Apart from her guilty plea, the sentence would have been 12 years.  Cooke J sentenced her and he "generously" (his word) gave her the full 1/3 credit although she had maintained her innocence during police interviews but entered a plea at a relatively early point following charge.

The Sentencing Remarks are here and merit full reading.

Coroners - Chief Coroner and updating the system

Chief Coroner - Peter Thornton QC

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

On 17th September, the new Chief Coroner for England and Wales (Judge Peter Thornton QC) finally took office.  As the government cogitated about implementation of the 2009 Act, he was appointed - "unappointed" - and then appointed again!
 
The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ('the 2009 Act') contained the almost inevitable provision for "commencement orders" which leave Ministers with the power to implement provisions at times of their choosing - e.g. when necessary resources are in place.  The "flip side" of such orders is that Ministers can avoid implementation and this has happened with several aspects of Part 1 of the 2009 Act which was put in place to bring about some reform of the system of Coroners and Certification of Death.  Coroners Courts are a long-standing system of locally-based courts and they have proved resistant to reform despite serious criticisms being raised from time-to-time. The change of government in 2010 resulted in yet more delay to bringing in the much needed reforms already provided for in the 2009 Act.

Reports leading to the 2009 Act:

Part 1 of the 2009 Act came about following severe criticism of the Coroner and Death certification systems system in reports such as the Fundamental Review of Death Certification and Investigation (2003) and the Shipman Inquiry - Third Report (2003).  A draft Coroners Bill was published in 2006 and received over 150 responses with a summary published in February 2007. The Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny with a further report published in November 2006.  There were several other consultations relating to matters such as death certification.  The full list is set out in the explanatory notes to the 2009 Act.

Death of Ian Tomlinson - Harwood dismissed from the Police

It was during the G20 protests in April 2009 that the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson occurred.  After a short misconduct hearing held in public, Simon Harwood - the Police Officer who struck Ian Tomlinson on the left leg with a baton and moments later pushed him to the ground - has been dismissed from the Police for gross misconduct.  Mr Tomlinson was helped to his feet by a member of the public and walked away.  He collapsed a short distance away and died.


The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation report of 24th August 2010 is a thorough analysis of the events on the day Ian Tomlinson died.

ITV News covered the misconduct hearing held on 17th September 2012.  Simon Harwood accepted that his actions amounted to gross misconduct and it emerged that he had offered to resign on two occasions.  However, Harwood did not accept that his actions inadvertently caused or contributed to Ian Tomlinson's death.

In the event, after submissions by Patrick Gibbs QC (representing Simon Harwood), the hearing decided not to deal with the question of "causation" - see the Metropolitan Police Service Statement 17th September 2012

Hillsborough ~ Independent Panel ~ No.2

UPDATE 12th October - IPCC announcement

UPDATE 5th October - Retirement announced of Sir Norman Bettison - Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

UPDATE 17th September - The Justice Gap - Mark George QC - Hillsborough and Cover Ups

UPDATES 13th September - Statement from the Attorney-General


and see this post (I'm sorry for Hillsborough) on the Police Inspector Blog

  -------------- 

Hillsborough Independent Panel  - Disclosed material and report - a website with all the information

The Hillsborough Independent Panel Report has been published.  It is a lengthy document of 389 pages but a summary may be read at pages 3 to 26.

In the House of Commons, the Prime Minister made a statement and offered the families of the bereaved an unreserved apology - (The Guardian 12th September - Hillsborough disaster: David Cameron apologises for double injustice).  Mr Cameron referred to the report as "deeply disturbing." He emphasised many of the Panel's findings such as the poor state of the stadium at Hillsborough, the failure of the authorities to protect people adequately, the incorrect blaming of the Liverpool fans, the alteration of statements in the possession of South Yorkshire Police, the fact that the Police ran Police National Computer checks on the dead with a view to impuning them, that blood was tested for alcohol including even the blood of children and that the 'deeply controversial' inquest was inadequate.  In particular, there was evidence to show that the 3.15 pm time limit imposed by the Coroner was fundamentally flawed.

Hillsborough ~ Independent Panel ~ No. 1

The Hillsborough debate in Parliament was held on 17th October 2011.  During the debate, the Home Secretary (Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP) clearly stated that the government would do all in its power to establish the truth and fully supported the independent panel under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Liverpool.  No government papers would be withheld.  The panel would oversee disclosure of documents and would report on its work.  The right way forward was for government to release documents to the panel and the families should see them before the public.  There would be full disclosure - uncensored and unredacted save for any redaction considered necessary by the panel after liaising with the families - e.g. to withhold information personal to particular victims.

Today, government papers about the Hillsborough disaster that have remained hidden from the public eye will be released. They are expected to shed more light on what happened on the 15 April 1989, when 96 Liverpool fans died in a crush on the terraces of Sheffield Wednesday’s ground during a FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest.  The Hillsborough Independent Panel has scrutinised 400,000 pages of documents for the past 18 months and will issue its report today, with victim’s families being given first access at Liverpool’s Anglican cathedral.

The events at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989 (and certain other disasters) eventually led to major improvements to sports facilities.  Hillsborough also generated an interesting legal legacy concerning - (a)  cases in tort for negligently caused psychiatric illness and (b) the withdrawal of medical treatment (the "Tony Bland" case) - for further see "The Hillsborough disaster and its legal legacy" (written in April 2009).

Questions the Hillsborough Families Support Group wish to see answered - The Guardian 12th September.

Who are the members of the Hillsborough Independent Panel - Liverpool Echo 12th September.

Human Rights - just a little more

Prof Juan Méndez

The right to help eachother:

Following on from the immediately preceding post, I came across a blogpost which seems to really try to get the the basis of what "human rights" are about - Do right, fear no-one! -The right to help eachother.

Here, solicitor Tom Gaisford argues that our discussion of human rights ignores one of our greatest freedoms.  Amongst all the rights defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is no mention of our freedom to help each other.  Nor has it been characterised as a human right since. Why not? The answer is simple: we have taken it for granted.

Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) said - "Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world." 


Concern about the Justice and Security Bill: