Home Forums Chat Forum G20 death – no charges

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • G20 death – no charges
  • Woody
    Free Member

    Been listening to the CPS reasoning for the decision live on BBC and I'm disgusted. The excuse for not proceeding with any charges is due to a disagreement between the original pathologist, Dr Patel and two subsequent Dr's as to cause of death. This would not allow a realistic chance of a successful prosecution. Not even a charge of common assault by the police officer because it has passed the 6 month limit.

    Justice? I think not 🙄

    molgrips
    Free Member

    It's the legal system, stuff like that happens all the time. There's really no better option. "Kill the pigs!" doesn't count as a system unfortunately.

    robdob
    Free Member

    Seems fair enough. Experts can't agree on cause of death so not enough evidence to suggest police caused death.

    Are you suggesting people should be tried and convicted without enough evidence to prove they did it? Surely not.

    Woody
    Free Member

    Are you suggesting people should be tried and convicted without enough evidence to prove they did it? Surely not.

    Of course not.

    The doctor who performed the original autopsy is currently suspended and under investigation for four other 'questionable' verdicts on causes of death. It was his original finding, subsequently disagreed with by 2 other doctors, which meant that there was little chance of a successful prosecution due to 'disagreement amongst medical experts'.

    In additon, it is the six month time limit on the charge of assault which has prevented the officer being charged despite the huge body of evidence which would probably have led to a guilty verdict.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    the death one is fine but to not even charge for assault when we have an officer of the law hitting someoen form behind – on film- who has his hands in his pockets is utterly unforgivable the CPS should be ashamed.

    I certainly dont want this officer "serving the public"

    Woody
    Free Member

    I certainly dont want this officer "serving the public"

    Agreed and I am far from anti-police as I work with them on a regular basis. In that time I have only once witnessed an officer behave in a questionable way.

    This guy obviously has temper control or other 'issues'. Whether that was a momentary lapse is irrelevant. The 'assault' was committed and he should have to bear the consequences like other people would have to in the same situation.

    inkster
    Free Member

    Obvious assault, even if pathology report is unclear.

    Why a 6 month limit on assault charge? I suppose all this delay has filled the pockets of many lawyers but done nothing for justice. We're so quick to lay into politicians and bankers for their greed, isn't it about time we put the legal system and it's employees on the rack? Seems they bleed us dryer than any other institution, whilst all the while assuming an air of moral self assurance without producing the results.

    What use is video evidence anyhow when the bleeding obvious gets in the way of legal protocol. Remember Steven Gerrard beating the c*** out of that d.j. for not playing a Phil Collins record? we all saw the cctv footage but the judge & scouse jury [under judges direction] saw it as self defense! and Gerrard gets rewarded with the England captaincy when the rest of us would likely be locked up for such an assault.

    thegreatape
    Free Member

    Re the 6 month limit

    wikipedia article on Statute of Limitations

    I'm afraid I haven't time just now to find anything beyond wikipedia.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

The topic ‘G20 death – no charges’ is closed to new replies.