Corrupt Police and CPS

Return to Home page

Corrupt Police and Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) -
The CPS should NOT BE the prosecuting authority against the police for deaths in custody

Unlawfully killed is "murder by the police" said Edmund Lawson QC See report below

Who represents the family in an English court when an innocent man or women is killed by the police

Not the police or the CPS they do everything to protect the police

The police and CPS are supposed to represent families of people who are innocent when killed
But when a jury gives a verdict of 'Unlawfully killed against a police officer
The police and the CPS go to a judge in the High Court and gets the inquest jury verdict quashed.
So who represents the families of people killed
NOT THE POLICE OR THE CPS

Human Rights Act 1998 - Schedule 1- RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS - RIGHT TO LIFE 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
(But not by the Police - CPS and the High Court in England)

In England 'Unlawfully killed' verdicts against the police 'WILL' be reversed' when the police challenge the verdicts. For the following reasons.

For years the CPS always say there is no evidence to prosecute any police and then 'If on very rare case' they are forced to reluctantly prosecute any police officers the CPS will not want a guilty verdict.
A 'Guilty verdict of Unlawfully killed' will obviously show the CPS to be biased against anyone killed in custody and show the CPS to be protecting the police without any just cause to do so.
At a trail when a jury gives a of verdict 'Unlawfully killed' it shows the CPS have been biased against the person killed by the police.
Since the Magna Carta (negotiated between King John's government and his subjects in 1215AD)
We have had a jury system in England which states 'lawful judgment of his peers' (the peers are the jury).
This is the only time the families of people killed are given a chance of a just verdict against the police because a verdict is NOT GIVEN a judge, or coroner
(But in many cases the coroner has told the jury what verdict to give to protect the police who have killed innocent people).

The jury from this point have 'NO' say what happens in the courts.

The police will then oppose the 'Unlawfully killed' verdicts

The police will then oppose the 'Unlawfully killed' verdicts given by a ..... lawful jury system .... which are then quashed by a High Court judge who will overturn a lawful verdict by the jury.
In all cases against all the evidence that is heard by a jury.
A High Court judge will overturn an 'Unlawfully killed' verdict because
English law must never 'admit' that English police kill innocent men and women.

Three ... Unlawfully killed ... verdicts by a lawful jury are quashed - MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE ENGLISH JUSTICE SYSTEM

Unlawfully killed is "murder by the police" said Edmund Lawson QC

Three 'Unlawfully killed' verdicts by a ... 'Lawful jury' ... have now been quashed by a 'High court' judge' because Unlawfully killed verdicts mean that the police have murdered innocent people.

This is what Edmund Lawson QC, said when he represented Ch Insp Sharman (for killing Harry Stanley). He asked the High Court to rule the second inquest "defective" and the verdict to be quashed.
He said the 'Unlawful killed' verdict amounted to "murder by the police"
SO NOW EVERYONE KNOWS WHY 'INQUEST JURY VERDICTS' OF 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED' ARE OVERTURNED AT THE REQUEST OF ENGLISH POLICE. UNLAWFULLY KILLED VERDICTS as everyone knows, we didn't need Edmund Lawson QC to tell us. IT MEANS THE ENGLISH POLICE HAVE MURDERED AN INNOCENT PERSON.
Leon Patterson (Unlawfully killed verdict quashed)
Harry Stanley (Unlawfully killed verdict quashed) and
Roger Sylvester (Unlawfully killed verdict quashed) - The name of the High court judge in all the 3 cases was not given.

The CPS Crown Prosecution Service will also NOT WANT an 'Unlawfully killed' verdict against the police

As this will show they have been protecting the police from prosecution for years by continually saying there is no evidence for a prosecution

Why are police not charged with 'Reckless manslaughter.'

His Honour Gerald Butler QC in the report on the case of Richard Joseph O’Brien. defined ‘reckless manslaughter’ as follows:

The accused (the police) must have caused the victim’s death by an act, whether unlawful or not , which creates an obvious and serious risk of bodily harm (probably serious bodily harm).

(My thoughts are: From what Gerald Butler QC said in his report anyone with even half a brain. )
Shooting at someone is therefore an act that will ... 'obviously' ... create a serious risk of bodily harm and you can kill that person.
Shot by police and killed Three of many - James Ashley -- Jean C de Menezes -- Harry Stanley

So why are police who SHOOT AND KILL AND CHOKE THE LIFE OUT OF innocent people. Not charged by the police and the CPS with an offence of at least 'Reckless manslaughter.'

There can only be one reason ... the police and the CPS do everything to stop charges against the police

OTHER DEATHS in police custody Caused by acts which creates an obvious and serious risk of bodily harm
Joy Gardner -- Glen Howard -- Shiji Lapite -- Alton Manning -- Richard Joseph O’Brien -- Oliver Scott -- Kenneth Severin -- Ibrahima Sey -- Dennis Stevens -- Roger Sylvester -- Sarah Thomas -- Leon Patterson -- Brian Douglas -- Glen Howard -- Mr Blair Peach -- Eric Smith-- Kenneth Severin ---- Dennis Stevens

Who represents the family in an English court when an innocent man or women is killed by the police

Not the police or the CPS they do everything to protect the police

Not the law ....

Not the police
Not the CPS or the DPP for years they always say there is no evidence to charge the police for any murder in police custody
Then after years the CPS are forced to charge police officers for a death in custody
Judges stop any trials that get to court ..... before all the evidence is heard .... and order the jury to acquit the officers charged. (Which is also 'Unlawful' It is the 'JURY' who decides what a verdict will be NOT THE JUDGE)

The CPS must NOT BE the prosecuting counsel against the police for deaths in custody
Because the CPS who have for years opposed any charges against police officers who have killed innocent men and women.
Now the CPS 'SAY THEY HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART' and are the prosecution to try to get a conviction against the policemen they have protected for years.
Christopher Alder Unlawfully killed verdict of the Inquest jury. 21 June 2002 Trial of five police officers
United Families and Friends Campaign attended the trial in Middlesbrough were, disturbed by the way they felt the prosecution was bring conducted.
The feeble prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service made the prospects for justice remote from the start of the trial.
So obviously the CPS and the DPP will not want a 'Guilty' verdict

The police and the CPS represent the police

Not the family of the innocent people who are killed,

So what official of 'English Law' represents the family of someone killed .... NO ONE

Not the police or the CPS.

There has NOT been one death in custody where the police and the CPS has immediately charged a police officer with an offence

THERE IS NO CHANCE A FAMILY OF ANYONE MURDERED BY THE POLICE WILL BE FOUND GUILTY

The CPS .... infamous ..... statement as always is.

There is no evidence to charge any police officer with an offence.

(No matter how overwhelming the evidence is and how many independent witnesses there are)

Even when an Inquest jury verdict of 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED' is given.

They will 'Deny Deny Deny' for years there is any evidence to charge police officers.

Hoping/knowing the 'Unlawfully killed' verdict will be overturned by a High court judge

Police are the law, the CPS and DPP represent justice of the law, judges make sure the police and the CPS and DPP are protected

THERE IS NO CHANCE A FAMILY OF ANYONE MURDERED BY THE POLICE WILL BE FOUND GUILTY

Juries ARE reluctant to convict police officers

His Honour Gerald Butler QC in the report on the case of Richard Joseph O’Brien.

My experience as a judge in the criminal courts over some 15 years, persuades me that any attempt to forecast the decision of a jury in a criminal prosecution is fraught with difficulty. Thus, it is sometimes said by those who work within the criminal justice system that juries seem reluctant to convict police officers.

No it's 'NOT' always the juries who are always reluctant .... it is the Judge who will tell the jury to dismiss all the charges against the police officer for a death in custody

And even when a jury gives a verdict of Unlawfully killed.

The police will object and the CPS offer no evidence against THE POLICE reversing the Unlawfully killed jury verdict.

THEN PEOPLE SAY WE HAVE THE BEST POLICE FORCE IN THE WORLD

IF WE HAVE

IT'S NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF
Amnesty International is concerned that the authorities have failed to carry out independent and impartial investigations into the full circumstances of each death in custody
THIS IS JUST ONE YEAR ... SIXTY FIVE PEOPLE DIED in police custody in England and Wales in the year ending March 1999, of whom several died in disputed circumstances.
Cases of custody deaths rarely result in disciplinary procedures against police officers even after an 'unlawful killing' finding at an inquest.
Corrupt English Police Thugs jailed for - 10 Murders - 3 Attempted killing - Rape (Several against young girls and boys) -
Child pornography - Grievous bodily harm - Assault - Drug charges -
Theft - Robbery (3 from pensioners). - Over 150 convictions reported on this web site
Click the web link from the Home page

Unlawful act/constructive manslaughter

A defendant is guilty of this sub-category of manslaughter if he intentionally does an act which is unlawful and dangerous which inadvertently causes death
(DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500 HL)

It is not necessary to prove that the unlawful and dangerous act was aimed at any person, or in particular the person whose death was caused
(R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 CA)

Neither is it necessary to prove that the defendant knew that his act was dangerous or unlawful
(Newbury) and (R v 0wino, unreported 13 March 1995)

'Danger' is determined objectively. The act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize that must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm, even if not serious harm
(R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59)

The above cases show that the law doesn't apply to English police

Double jeopardy law - Now in force

Return to Home page