Deportees security guards can be charged with manslaughter?

[boyfriday]

There is always risk when restraining someone and it must be difficult having a job where you have to do it. Imagine one of your family members had a job like that and whilst restraining someone with a criminal record for violence the person died. You'd hope that they'd be given the benefit of the doubt and spared the added stress of a trial for manslaughter unless there was hard evidence of wrongdoing.

Would I hope that given the findings of an independent inquest? I'm not sure I would, as much as I love my kids I'd find it hard to protest about trial proceedings in respect of an event they were involved in that ended in the loss of someone's life.

I didn't say there shouldn't be a trial because I've not seen the evidence and can't judge. I said I hoped there really was new evidence and that the evidence isn't going to rely on second guessing the restraining tactics used unless there were clearly disporportionately dangerous and clearly avoidable.

Apparently there is new evidence, but I suspect the outcome will rely heavily on witness testimony. If they behaved properly they'll be exonerated, if they haven't then they'll be convicted.

 

Don't forget the jury's made up of normal people, even some like you and me , they'll hear the reasons for his deportation and about his violent nature, they'll also hear about the racially offensive material one of the guards had on his phone, then they'll make their minds up based on all that and what the witnesses have to say..it ain't rocket science Zamo!

[Cyclone]

There is always risk when restraining someone and it must be difficult having a job where you have to do it. Imagine one of your family members had a job like that and whilst restraining someone with a criminal record for violence the person died. You'd hope that they'd be given the benefit of the doubt and spared the added stress of a trial for manslaughter unless there was hard evidence of wrongdoing.

 

I didn't say there shouldn't be a trial because I've not seen the evidence and can't judge. I said I hoped there really was new evidence and that the evidence isn't going to rely on second guessing the restraining tactics used unless there were clearly disporportionately dangerous and clearly avoidable.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2014 at 13:32 ----------

 

 

That might be true but neither of us can say for sure. The fact is the CPS has a track record of changing its mind following political, media or lobbying pressure only for the not guilty verdicts to roll in. You can't blame people for being a bit sceptical.

 

Surely the death is evidence of something being wrong...

[boyfriday]

That might be true but neither of us can say for sure. The fact is the CPS has a track record of changing its mind following political, media or lobbying pressure only for the not guilty verdicts to roll in. You can't blame people for being a bit sceptical.

 

I don't give a rat's fart!

 

A member of the public died in suspicious circumstances whilst handcuffed and in the custody of a 3 man security team.

 

The CPS decided not to prosecute them.

 

For all we know that decision could have been politically motivated, after all the government don't need any criticism of G4S and their relationship with them.

 

An independent inquest (juried) found that the man had been unlawfully killed.

 

What other options are available to the CPS now other than revisiting the case and allowing a criminal court to decide?

[999tigger]

There is always risk when restraining someone and it must be difficult having a job where you have to do it. Imagine one of your family members had a job like that and whilst restraining someone with a criminal record for violence the person died. You'd hope that they'd be given the benefit of the doubt and spared the added stress of a trial for manslaughter unless there was hard evidence of wrongdoing.

 

I didn't say there shouldn't be a trial because I've not seen the evidence and can't judge. I said I hoped there really was new evidence and that the evidence isn't going to rely on second guessing the restraining tactics used unless there were clearly disporportionately dangerous and clearly avoidable.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2014 at 13:32 ----------

 

 

That might be true but neither of us can say for sure. The fact is the CPS has a track record of changing its mind following political, media or lobbying pressure only for the not guilty verdicts to roll in. You can't blame people for being a bit sceptical.

 

Did you follow the inquest and know what the issues are? Not sue why you feel there had to be new evidence when you dont appreciate the evidence they had in the first place.

 

The restraining tactics are well known and it is what they are trained to do. They will have expert testimony on that. They then have witnesses including the guards themselves on what actually happened.

 

The jury reached a verdict of unlawful killing so its a bit more than someone just dying in their custody. If you read up on the inqyest and find out what the issues were then youd be able to answer a lot of your own questions.

[Zamo]

Did you follow the inquest and know what the issues are? Not sue why you feel there had to be new evidence when you dont appreciate the evidence they had in the first place.

 

The restraining tactics are well known and it is what they are trained to do. They will have expert testimony on that. They then have witnesses including the guards themselves on what actually happened.

 

The jury reached a verdict of unlawful killing so its a bit more than someone just dying in their custody. If you read up on the inqyest and find out what the issues were then youd be able to answer a lot of your own questions.

 

I've read the summary of the Coroner's report/recommendations as printed by thre Guardian. They were:

 

• A system of payment that rewards guards if they can keep a detainee quiet until the aircraft takes off;

 

• Evidence of "pervasive racism" among G4S detention custody officers who were tasked with removing detainees;

 

• Fears that these racist attitudes – and "loutish, laddish behaviour … Inappropriate language, and peer pressure" – are still common among escort guards today;

 

• Lack of "scenario specific" training for those tasked with trying to restrain people on aircrafts;

 

• Evidence of the use of dangerous restraint techniques such as "carpet karaoke" where detainees' heads are forced downwards to prevent them upsetting the passengers or causing the captain to abort the removal;

 

• and concern that many guards were not officially accredited to carry out removals – meaning they would have been acting illegally.

 

None of the issues highlighted suggest that the guards did anything illegal or unacceptable according to current guidance and procedures. The issues were with 'the system' as a whole i.e. what guidance and training they provide, how they manage staff etc. But the guards in question are not responsible for the system.

 

So, as I originally said, it looks like the trial will focus on second guessing the restraining techniques the guards deployed. I don't think that is appropriate if the techniques were legal unless there is evidence that the deportee was not acting in a way that required him to be restrained. There doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence of that, which is why I guess the CPS originally decided not to prosecute.

 

I do not think it is fair to blame the guards for issues that appear to be systematic. However, if there is new evidence that shows the guards abused their powers and restraint was not necessary or grossly excessive then I'll change my mind. If there isn't evidence of this then there should be no trial and it is another case of the CPS succombing to pressure.

[boyfriday]

I've read the summary of the Coroner's report/recommendations as printed by thre Guardian. They were:

 

• A system of payment that rewards guards if they can keep a detainee quiet until the aircraft takes off;

 

• Evidence of "pervasive racism" among G4S detention custody officers who were tasked with removing detainees;

 

• Fears that these racist attitudes – and "loutish, laddish behaviour … Inappropriate language, and peer pressure" – are still common among escort guards today;

 

• Lack of "scenario specific" training for those tasked with trying to restrain people on aircrafts;

 

• Evidence of the use of dangerous restraint techniques such as "carpet karaoke" where detainees' heads are forced downwards to prevent them upsetting the passengers or causing the captain to abort the removal;

 

• and concern that many guards were not officially accredited to carry out removals – meaning they would have been acting illegally.

 

None of the issues highlighted suggest that the guards did anything illegal or unacceptable according to current guidance and procedures. The issues were with 'the system' as a whole i.e. what guidance and training they provide, how they manage staff etc. But the guards in question are not responsible for the system.

 

So, as I originally said, it looks like the trial will focus on second guessing the restraining techniques the guards deployed. I don't think that is appropriate if the techniques were legal unless there is evidence that the deportee was not acting in a way that required him to be restrained. There doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence of that, which is why I guess the CPS originally decided not to prosecute.

 

I do not think it is fair to blame the guards for issues that appear to be systematic. However, if there is new evidence that shows the guards abused their powers and restraint was not necessary or grossly excessive then I'll change my mind. If there isn't evidence of this then there should be no trial and it is another case of the CPS succombing to pressure.

 

Notwithstanding systemic failures, even my 8 year old nephew would appreciate that someone in handcuffs bent double with their head pressed towards their knees who was exclaiming they were unable to breath might be in mortal danger.

[SportsTrophy]

How can you not have enough evidence for corporate manslaughter when the guards were in uniform and on duty but yet enough evidence to charge three individuals.

[ricgem2002]

Notwithstanding systemic failures, even my 8 year old nephew would appreciate that someone in handcuffs bent double with their head pressed towards their knees who was exclaiming they were unable to breath might be in mortal danger.

now now bf what else does your 8 year old nephew watch what you get up to

[boyfriday]

now now bf what else does your 8 year old nephew watch what you get up to

 

Im currently applying my pile ointment from behind a locked bathroom door rg : hihi: