Obviously not very good odds! However, I'm not sure what point you are try to make. It was a jury that acquitted him - are you suggesting that the the jury was corrupt, 'nobbled', in love with the police force, stupid or what? Or are you perhaps sugegsting that, because of the facts you state, they should have convicted him even if they were not convinced by the available evidence? Or what?
Perhaps neither, since there are totally different 'burdens of proof'. A jury in a criminal case has to be satisfied of guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in order to convict. A coroner, or coroner's jury, only has to work to the 'civil' burden of proof - "on the balance of probabilities". In other words, a coroner (or coroner's jury) can return an 'unlawful killing' vedict if they think there is a 51% probability of that being true - whereas the criminal jury have to be far more convinced than that in order to convict anyone of the alleged killing.
The difference between the required levels of certainty ('burden of proof') required by criminal and civil/coroners courts is probably not as widely understood as it should be, but means that one has to be quite cautious in interpreting civil court judgements and coroner's verdicts. As I said, at worst it can mean only a perceived "51%" probability that the judgement/verdict is correct.
The problem is that it's not that simple. My gut feelings (as, I imagine, most people's gut feelings) are the same as yours. However, for some reason (which neither you nor I know), a jury could not be convinced 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he was guilty of manslaughter. Is it really for you or I (invoking appeals to 'common sense' and feelings of what is, or is not, 'satisfactory') to say that we are right, and the jury was wrong, and thereby potentially send a man to prison for life - particularly given that, as above, there may be anything up to a 49% probability that the coroner's verdict was 'wrong'? I'll try to look up the case, since it would be interest to read the judge's Summing Up - that might well give some insight into what put some 'reasonable doubt' into the minds of the jury.
I'm suggesting that too many people, like the police themselves, and the judiciary, and the CPS, believe that there really is one law for the police and one for the rest of us.
Double jeopardy may have (just about) 'gone' as a universal concept, but the requirements (in terms of new evidence) for allowing 'another go' are extremely tight - and I'm not at all sure that there is any appreciable new evidence in relation to the alleged manslaughter charge, is there? If you think that they should 'have another go', what do you think would be the grounds - your disagreeing with the previous jury's verdict obvioulsy is not an acceptable reason!
So you're suggesting that the jury acquitted him on the basis of evidence that would have caused them the convict a non-policeman? Why would that have been? - the general public (from whom the jury was drawn) are not really known for having total faith and confidence in the police, are they?
Is this BAS talking? have you turned over a new leaf?
That's what we're discussing - a jury did not feel that there was strong enough evidence to convict him of manslaughter.
There's a strong likelihood.
I served on a jury once, and there were two people who openly expressed the belief that the police did not lie, and that if they said the defendant was guilty then he must be.
I see!
Are there? Fifty years ago, you would probably have been be right but the impression I get is that the bulk of public opinion has swing entirely in the otehr direction.
As you say, there does not have to be intent to kill (which would usually be murder, anyway) or even to do serious harm for manslaughter to have been comitted. On the other hand, being the cause of someone's death is obviously not always manslaughter. As you say, it's all crucially dependent upon whether the death was 'unlawful' - and, as I explained yesterday, one certainly cannot rely (in a criminal court) on a coroner's court ('balance of probabilities) verdict of "unlawful killing".
The Coroner ruled 'unlawful killing'.
Yes.
Not quite irrelevant.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
