The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be able to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner has said.
Sir Michael Wright said that having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing was "not justified".
He must be pushing for a nice cushy job at the Home Orifice or something.
Cunt.
Hat tip to the Ambush Predator.
5 comments:
Spot the mason, anyone?
The Penguin
Cheers for the h/t.
Some more details are emerging now.
This is interesting: "Sir Michael told the 11 jurors that their verdicts cannot be inconsistent with the outcome of the Metropolitan Police's health and safety trial at the Old Bailey, which spared Cressida Dick, a deputy assistant commissioner who led the operation, of personal blame. "
Why not? These are two seperate legal processes. Surely, the one is not in any way based on the other?
Whilst browsing around earlier I saw a thread which says that if they want to the jury can return a verdict "to acquit" and if the judge don't like it he can be told to go forth and multiply and the acquittal verdict will hav to stand.
Sorry folks, can't remember where I saw it now.
Is that not in a criminal trial, though, rather than a coroner's court?
And I wonder what would happen if the jury, on returning, simply issued a statement to the effect that there was no point continuing with a farce, and walked out, en masse?
I think the jury should tell him to fuck off and bring in a verdict that they think is just.
Post a Comment