Harry Stanley, was blatantly murdered by the police, but they won’t be 'doing time'

MOJUK, carries the full Crown Prosecution Service, press release. There is enough evidence in the press release to convict (or easier still, ‘fit up’) these pair of murdering bastards, several times over, but it ain’t going to happen.

==========================

Let a Jury Decide - Coppers did the Crime - but they ain't going to do no Time

Two police officers who shot an unarmed man dead in a London street will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service ruled on Thursday 13th December.

Harry Stanley, 46, died after being shot in the head and hand by two firearms officers who said they mistook a wooden table leg in a plastic bag for a sawn-off shotgun in September 1999 in Hackney, east London.

The Crown Prosecution Service said "that the scientific and expert evidence contradicted the account given by the two officers." That "It is also clear that both officers intended, at least, to cause grievous bodily harm." and "concluded that officers had been negligent and had failed in the duty of care they owed Mr Stanley." "But there was insufficient evidence to bring charges."

How many people are rotting in UK prisons, convicted of murder on far less evidence?

Whether the officers were acting under an honest mistaken belief in self-defence, is an issue that should to be left to a Jury.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s role is to bring the evidence before the court and let the jury decide the facts. It's not up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide that a suspects defence is sufficient to waiver prosecution.

Armed police officers are supposed to be highly trained marksmen, who won't shoot in panic. They didn't shoot to disable - they shot to kill and there is no self-defence in that. The law on self-defence is that you may use sufficient force to protect yourself.

Harry Stanley would have to have been a very clever marksmen to have shot (what the police say they thought was a double barrelled shot gun) at them and caused injury, only using one hand.

The police should have known that even if he did have a gun, as he was only raising one arm he was very very unlikely to have shot on target.

Harry was raising his hands to surrender after the officers shouted a warning when the first shot was fired hitting him in the left hand which was at around waist height. A second shot, then passed through his head They say the plastic bag containing the table leg was in his right.

Mr Stanley's widow Irene said: "Their decision effectively gives the police a licence to kill."

===============================================

Following a further thorough review of the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the police officers involved.

Harry Stanley was shot dead in tragic circumstances in the early hours of 22 September 1999, Surrey police investigated his death Under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, and a detailed and complex report was transmitted to the crown Prosecution Service in June, 2000. The report addressed, in Particular, the actions of the two police Officers who caused who caused Mr Stanley's death

On 4 December 2000, the CPS informed the Surrey Police and the Stanley family that having reviewed the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors they had decided that there was insufficient evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction with regard to any criminal offence alleged to have been committed by either officer- For this reason, they concluded that criminal proceedings should not be instituted against the officers involved.

Following correspondence, solicitors commenced judicial review proceedings on behalf of Irene Stanley, Mr. Stanley's widow. They argued that the CPS decision not to prosecute the officers for gross negligence manslaughter was legally flawed because it relied on an erroneous conclusion. This was that it could not be proved that Mr. Stanley's death was caused by tactical errors committed by the two police officers,

Having considered the application for judicial review, the CPS agreed to conduct a further review of all the evidence and material submitted to it to decide afresh whether there was a realistic prospect of securing a conviction in respect of any offence.

Accordingly, the CPS has re-considered whether, under the Code, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against either police officer in relation to any of the following offences: murder, attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent (contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861), manslaughter by gross negligence or misconduct in a public office.

In doing so the CPS have looked afresh at the entirety of the material and sought, once again, an opinion from Queen's Counsel, from whom the CPS received lengthy and comprehensive advice. For the avoidance of doubt, that was -not the same Queen's Counsel who had advised in relation to the earlier decision. During the course of the reconsideration, clarification was sought on a number of matters from those expert witnesses who had already provided statements to the PCA investigation. Indeed, the police firearms policy expert provided three further detailed witness statements to the CPS.

Having considered the evidential test identified at paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of the Code, the CPS has now concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings against either police officer in relation to any of the above offences

The case against each officer has been considered separately. However, the CPS has also considered whether, in accordance with the well known principles of 'joint' enterprise", either officer may be said to be liable for the acts of the other. We have taken into account the application of the Human Rights Act, in particular Act 2 of the Convention.

In relation to the specific acts of the officers, it is clear that Officer 1 fired a shot, which passed through the head of Henry Stanley, resulting in his death. Officer 2 fired a shot, Which passed through the left ring finger causing injury to the fingers on either side. It is also clear that both officers intended, at least, to cause grievous bodily harm.

The CPS are obliged, however, to consider any possible defence's that might arise and, after careful consideration, have concluded that not only is the defence of self-defence undoubtedly open in respect of murder (and attempted murder and grievous bodily harm), but that it is also available in the case of gross negligence manslaughter. In these circumstances we have considered whether the prosecution would be able to disprove the inevitable defence that the police officers had an honest belief that they or others were in danger of harm and thus entitled to use force commensurate with the danger threatened. In essence, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to disprove the inevitable defence contention that the officers honestly believed that they were facing a sawn-off shotgun and that this threat was of a sufficient degree to merit the use of their guns to defend themselves in reasonable self-defence.

In interview, both officers maintained that Mr. Stanley turned towards them, raising an object in his hands, which they believed was a sawn-off shotgun, until it pointed directly at them, This lead them to fear for Officer 2's life. Both officers stated that they each fired a single shot because they considered that one of them faced an immediate threat to his life. There is, in the material before us, no substantial evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the officers' beliefs were anything other than genuine. The only independent witness to view the entire scene supports the fact that Mr. Stanley turned to face the police officers raising, as he did so, one of his arms in the direction of the police. She says that she saw the man raise one of his arms towards the officers in a deliberate and unhurried manner.

The scientific evidence does not undermine the account given by the officers regarding the events immediately before the shooting to the extent that the CPS considers that there is sufficient evidence of unlawfulness on their part. Although the account given by Officer I may superficially be inconsistent with the fact that Mr.Stanley's head was facing 120 degrees away from where he was standing, this does not exclude the possibility that the body and the right arm holding the carrier bag were nevertheless facing the officers, particularly if Mr Stanley was shot in the hand first, causing an unpredictable head movement Similarly, although the fact that there was no injury to Mr. Stanley's body indicates that he was not holding the bag out directly in front of him, this does not necessarily mean that he was not holding the, bag with both hands in the general direction of the police officers.

At best, the scientific evidence may provide some support for the conclusion that the police officers may have been inaccurate or even lied about their respective positions in the street. However, this would not be sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that they were acting unlawfully. The prosecution evidence still permits the conclusion that Mr. Stanley may have been turning towards them with the table leg in the bag. Accordingly, it would be very difficult to disprove a genuine belief that the officers were facing a sawn-off shotgun. It follows that proceedings for murder, attempted murder or grievous bodily harm should not, be instituted.

Even if the CPS are mistaken as to whether the defence of self-defence is open in principle to gross negligence manslaughter, the CPS have concluded that there is, in any event, insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to its primary elements as set out in the case. of R v Adornako (1995] 1 AC 171, This case makes it clear that the prosecution is obliged to prove that there was a breach of a duty of care which caused the death of Mr. Stanley and, if so, that such a breach should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore criminal. In this case, it is clear that such issues arise out of the planning and tactics employed by the two police officers.

The CPS have concluded that there is sufficient evidence on which a jury could realistically be satisfied that there were breaches of the duty of care owed by both officers to Mr. Stanley, and that there was a sufficient causal link between the breaches and the death. In law, it is sufficient that the defendant's acts are a significant cause of death, rather than something that is merely "de minimis", and the CPS are satisfied that there is evidence that this is the case here.

The CPS have also considered whether the fact that there is evidence that the officers shot, or may have shot, Mr. Stanley in self-defence is sufficient to break the chain of causation. The CPS have concluded that it is not. Although Mr Stanley had a high alcohol blood reading, he was entitled to turn around upon hearing the shouted command from the police: "Armed police, drop the gun". Indeed, as he was not carrying a gun at all, he was entitled to place the table leg in whatever position he chose. If the police then shot him in self-defence having left themselves with no option, through their own tactical errors, but to do so, it seems to us that they cannot rely upon the fact that Mr. Stanley did as he did as a justification for breaking the chain of causation.

However, in relation to whether there is evidence upon which the jury could conclude that there was gross negligence deserving of the description "criminal", the CPS have concluded (as has Queen's Counsel) on the material provided, that there is insufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the actions of both police officers fell sufficiently short of what a reasonable man would have done, placed it the position of the officers. I, doing so, the CPS recognise that evidence of recklessness may suffice in establishing such a conclusion, but also that the accused is entitled to adduce evidence that might excuse his conduct.

The CPS have considered whether the actions of either police officer amounted to misconduct in a public office. However, in this case, where there is no evidence of bad faith, the CPS have concluded that there is insufficient evidence fox- an offence of misconduct. . . . . . . . .

.-ends-