Last week’s decision reached by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against prosecuting three security guards over the death of Angolan refugee, Jimmy Mubenga was met with howls of derision. The men who work for the much maligned private security firm G4S – currently embroiled in the Olympic Games security fiasco and also contracted with the Home Office to shepherd deportees to their home countries – will not now face charges of manslaughter.
Mubenga resided with his family in the United Kingdom for 16 years after being granted leave to remain in the country. After a conviction in 2006 for actual bodily harm (ABH), he was sentenced to two years in jail and then detained at an immigration centre before the fateful attempted deportation.
Confusion surrounds the series of events which led to the death. G4S and the Home Office insist that Mubenga had taken ill on the day of the aborted deportation, 12th October 2010 which in turn led to the airline carrier’s return to London. His wife, Makenda Kambana on the other hand points to the fact that some on the flight had borne witness to the fact that “he was crying for help before he was killed”.
The CPS for their part insist that there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges of gross negligence manslaughter. Its Senior Crown Advocate, Gaon Hart highlighted that experts unanimously concluded that Mr Mubenga’s physiological condition and agitated state prior to his death may have contributed to his demise. Hart continued that a combination of additional factors including “adrenaline, muscle exhaustion or isometric exercise” could not be ruled out as a cause of the death.
Needless to say more than a couple of eyebrows were raised following Hart’s pronouncements. Frances Webber, former Barrister & Vice-Chair of the Institute of Race Relations wrote in the Guardian that Hart’s line of reasoning would mean that no murderer whose victim struggled could be charged if they exhibited the same characteristics highlighted by Hart as potential causes of death. More importantly, he raises the long abiding principle of the “eggshell skull” doctrine, which ensures that one still bears legal responsibility for the death of another, even if the latter had a pre-existing medical condition, whether diagnosed or not.
In addition to these, the CPS appear to have neglected to consider public interest matters in deciding against prosecution, not least because of the government’s rapidly expanding privatisation programme. Even more questionable is Hart’s assertion that there were shortcomings in the standard of training received by the men and that there was a “breach of duty”. Surely even one with only the most basic legal knowledge would appreciate that this finding may not have been arrived at without the acquisition of sufficient supporting evidence.
It is not unfair to assert that the CPS appear to have assumed both judicial and prosecution roles in this sad debacle. The decision also comes against the background of the acquittal of PC Simon Harwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson. Statistics also suggest that over 1,440 individuals have lost their lives whilst in the hands of the Police since 1990. Staggeringly only one individual has been successfully prosecuted following a charge of manslaughter in that time.
Perhaps the CPS should have left it to the Court to decide the issue of “beyond reasonable doubt” the men’s innocence or guilt. The greater damage however has been done to the reputation of the much vaunted British legal system as the decision not only sends the message that the life of a migrant is not worth as much as the country’s own citizens, but also that the country’s security personnel are no different to those of authoritarian states in being above the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment