Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Jimmy Mubenga
Collapse
X
-
- Aug 2008
- 25227
- The zero meridian
- Swansea, Gaziantepspor and the Zeugma Franchise
- Bahlsen Choco Leibniz Dark
Jimmy Mubenga
I am still in shock that they got off, the case appeared so strong after the inquest ruled his death unlawful.
I had heard about the views of the guards, how was this deemed inadmissible?
Comment
-
- Aug 2008
- 25227
- The zero meridian
- Swansea, Gaziantepspor and the Zeugma Franchise
- Bahlsen Choco Leibniz Dark
Jimmy Mubenga
The guards, who were paid by the hour, stood to lose £170 each if the deportation did not go ahead as planned. British Airways faced financial penalties if the flight was delayed.
The Inquest jury found that Jimmy Mubenga had been "unlawfully killed", that one or more of the guards had pushed or held him down "in an unlawful manner". They said the guards "would have known that they would have caused Mr Mubenga harm in their actions, if not serious harm".
One feature of Home Office charter flights is the absence of fare-paying passengers. In other words, there are no independent witnesses aboard.
Comment
-
Jimmy Mubenga
The texts were ruled inadmissible, I presume, something to do with this:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/#exclusion
The court cannot exclude evidence of bad character of its own motion after the prosecution has served notice that it intends to adduce evidence of bad character.
The defence can apply to have the evidence excluded under section 101(3) where it is admissible under subsection (d) and subsection (g) (where the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case between the prosecution and the defendant or has become admissible because of the defendant's attack on another person).
In these two circumstances the court must not admit such evidence if it appears that its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to admit it. In applying the test the court is directed to take account, in particular, of the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous events and the current charge. This is a stricter test than under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which states that the court may refuse to admit the evidence, whereas section 101(3) states that the court must not admit the evidence if it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
I'm basing my reasoning on no legal experience at all.
Comment
Comment