Duggan, Goetz, and the issues of race and juries.

There have been several black commentators express concern or surprise over the jury's verdict at the inquest into Mark Duggan's death. Their concerns seem to revolve around the apparent contradiction between the jury's finding that Duggan was not armed when the police faced him, yet still finding that the police officer had an honest belief that lethal force was necessary because Duggan was armed.
Diane Abbott Tweeted

 

Diane Abbott MPVerified account‏@HackneyAbbott

If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 

• 1,513RETWEETS
• 363FAVORITES

Tottenham community activist Stafford Scott states it is a perverse verdict:

"I don't understand how there could have been an honest but mistaken belief about seeing the gun," Scott said. "And that is why the verdict is – in legal language – 'perverse'." 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/19/mark-duggan-lawful-killing-inquest-verdict?CMP=twt_gu

In my opinion, neither view can be sustained with a correct understanding of the legal process. We may not know the jury's thought processes, but that is not the same as being a perverse verdict. A perverse verdict is exemplified by the acquittal of Clive Ponting for leaking secrets about the sinking of the General Belgrano:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/16/newsid_2545000/2545907.stm

There has been a thorough examination of the issues in the USA in an even more striking case, People v Goetz. In this case, a New Yorker shot four black youths after they asked him for $5. He shot one of them a second time, saying "You don't look too bad, here's another." He argued this was self-defense as he thought they were going to rob him.

This was in an era of high crime on the New York subway, and many New Yorkers would have sympathized with the fear of crime and even applauded his actions. He was found not guilty of attempted murder and assault, but guilty of illegal gun possession.

Jody Armour addresses the issues of the Goetz trial in her paper 'Race Ipsa Loquitur', (46 Stan. L. Rev. 781 1993-1994) which should be read by anyone seeking to understand the wider issues potentially raised by the Duggan case. To quote the abstract:

In this article, Professor Armour explores some of the legal implications of the disturbing notion that, given the perception that blacks are more prone to commit violent acts than non-blacks, it is rational for criminal defendants claiming self-defense to consider race in assessing the risk of violence posed by a supposed assailant. Professor Armour identifies three distinct types of self- defense claims that a defendant may advance, each of which requires the introduction of race-based evidence and arguments to establish the reasonableness of the defendant's actions. While recognizing that a supposed assailant's race may be formally relevant under self-defense doctrine, Professor Armour argues against legal recognition of race-based self-defense claims. Professor Armour's thesis implicates a wide array of jurisprudential concerns: the nature of the moral norm implicit in the reasonable person test; the acceptability of using statistical generalizations in adjudication; and the conflict between instrumental and non-instrumental thinking about legal liability. Professor Armour ultimately concludes that admitting race-based evidence in self-defense cases gives effect to private prejudice in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The subjective test for an honest belief in self defence has to be modified by policy- and equality-based concerns to prevent explicit or implicit racial bias denying BME people an equal chance of justice.

Murder - the required actus reus and mens rea

Murder - the required actus reus and mens rea

There are various offences of homicide in England. There is murder, voluntary manslaughter, unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, corporate manslaughter, infanticide and driving-related homicide (causing death by dangerous/careless driving etc). There are no degrees of murder in England, and the offence has a compulsory life sentence. The partial defences of diminished responsibility and loss of control, plus the circumstances of a suicide pact, make an intentional homicide voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.

The actus reus for murder is causing the death. At first glance, this might seem to suggest that omissions are incapable of constituting the actus reus. Certainly neglect in the case of Stone and Dobinson where the couple were held to owe a duty of care, they were found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. However, in the case of Gibbons and Proctor, it was held that an omission could be the actus reus of murder where there was a duty of care.

The mens rea for murder is the intention to kill, or the oblique intention to kill, or the intention to cause serious harm (grievous bodily harm, but not for attempted murder). The oblique intention to kill is present when the person knows their actions are virtually certain to result in death. For example throwing someone from a third-floor balcony was seen as the oblique intention for murder in Walker (although the victim survived miraculously).

So if someone states that a nurse deliberately withheld a "life-saving drug" from her mother, that is certainly capable of amounting to murder. If the drug was "life-saving" (not just important) and the nurse knew this, then the mens rea of oblique intent seems satisfied. If the omission caused death, then the offence is made out. The person making this allegation has apparently not pursued the authorities to investigate the murder of her relative, although she has vigorously pursued other issues and actions. If it were my mother, that would be my highest priority. The account as it stands is difficult to believe, knowing the personality of the person involved.

Further, this is therefore an implicit accusation of murder. The relative making the accusation insists she has never accused hospital staff of murder (although plenty of her supporters have and still do), but she has very much made this accusation even if she hasn't explicitly used the term "murder".

Saint Julie Bailey and the pseudonymous trolls

Saint Julie Bailey and the pseudonymous trolls

If it's not enough for the people of Staffordshire and beyond that St Julie Bailey received a CBE (just outranking the keeper of the prime ministerial parting), they find that their right to free speech about this award is being impugned. Is it really newsworthy that some people dislike a public figure? The most outrageous comments came from a conveniently short-lived and pseudonymous account, which might make some suspicious as to whether the troll was actually an Cure-supporting agent provocateur rather than a Cure critic. After all, the evidence for the supposed hate campaign was pretty flimsy.

There are several pseudonymous trolls who do the Cure dirty work on Twitter. The identities of some of them have been revealed on Twitter, for example @GiletGirl. The unifying feature of all the pseudonymous trolls is their resort to dirty tricks when they lose an argument. As reported on this blog and elsewhere, people associated with Cure have resorted to blackmail in the past to try and silence critics. The end seems to justify the means for many of those associated with the Cure campaign. 

Patients For Profit?

Patients For Profit?

Another blog courtesy of an informed Tweep!

Since 2009 following Stafford Hospital’s prominence in the media, there has been a flood of compensation claims made through medical negligence firms.   Last year alone saw the NHS put ‘aside’ a staggering £22.7 billion, up 20% from previous year. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10189204/Jaw-dropping-rise-in-NHS-claims-after-scandals.html

The total figure is obscene, but worst of all are the profits made from the misfortunes of patients; of course the legal profession spring to mind as reported here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2494232/Mid-Staffs-scandal-Lawyers-grab-HALF-victim-payouts-in.html

However I wish to look at the role of ‘patient groups’. It might be assumed that patient groups are set up by well-meaning campaigners who were patients or represent patient, to offer support to all those in need for altruistic reasons.  However this may not always be the case.

Julie Bailey  founder of Cure The NHS formed a company called “Cure The Health” on the 14th March 2013, which has two directors; Ms Julie Bailey and Mr James Duff,  equal ‘shareholders’ of the Ltd Company.  Unfortunately this company is now in the process of being ‘struck off’ before accounts were submitted and therefore we will not know the extent of any profits made.

 

Cure The NHS itself is not documented anywhere as a ‘legal entity’ however on its website it asks for public donations.  This could confuse people who may believe it is a registered charity-it is not!

 

I have discovered another ‘patient group’ called “Patients First” @PatientsfFirst UK.   Patients First was founded by Whistle Blowerand  campaigner Dr Kim Holt and the website states:

“Our purpose is to reduce death and harm in the NHS by campaigning for the UK Government to create policies and laws that ensure the NHS becomes open and accountable and we will actively support all those who raise concerns about patient safety”.

http://www.patientsfirst.org.uk

The site registers its “Supporters” as

Both of these organisations have links with ‘Cure The NHS’

http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2009/March-2009/Leigh-Day-instructed-over-Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-Fo

AvMA was also heavily involved with the Mid Staffs enquiry:

 

AvMA presented awards to Julie Bailey and Dr Kim Holt:

Also another award goes to:

http://www.leighday.co.uk/About-us/What-people-say-about-us/Awards

All very cosy and a little strange.  Patients Firsts URL address suggests that it’s a charity and indeed it asks for public donations:

 However, all is not what it seems.  Just like the previous ‘patient group’, Patients First is also a Limited Company. 

The two directors are Dr Kim Holt, also sole shareholder, (@drkimholt) and Mr Roger Kline (@rogerkline ).  Dr Kim Holt lists her occupation as “Doctor” and Mr Kline lists his as “Employment Consultant”.

So we have a company that by all appearances looks like a charity; uses a charity URL and asks for public donations but yet it is a profit making company!  Unless there are two separate entities this seems contrary to charity law (cf Amnesty International which has split), and there is a legal obligation to state this. Neither Patients First nor Cure the Health appears to be ‘Community Interest Companies’.

What are medical negligence law specialists AvMA and Leigh Day and Co connected with ‘patient groups’?  There are multiple connections between all these entities, with no scrutiny of the Conflicts of Interest created. Perhaps it’s time for an ‘inquiry’ into these ‘patients groups’!

What do Stafford and Liverpool have in common?

What do Stafford and Liverpool have in common?

On the face of it, Stafford and Liverpool have very little in common. One is a market town, another a large city. Socio-economically they are vastly different. But in one respect they share a common grievance - they have been maligned as a community by a media campaign motivated by political interests.

This is not to try and draw ridiculous parallels with the Hillsborough tragedy and the systematic cover-up afterwards. The events at Stafford do not bear comparison with Hillsborough. But there has been a concerted reporting of one skewed version of the facts about Mid Staffs which has smeared the entire community, which appears to be politically motivated. This version of the events at Mid Staffs has been used to justify the current dismantling of the NHS. There have been allegations of a hate campaign, for which the police could find insufficient evidence to proceed. Julie Bailey has alleged she was "run out of town". After her recent award of the CBE, newspapers reported opposition and criticism from Stafford people. Yet another attack on the people of Stafford.

Criticism of the award is understandable, given the circumstances. How would the people of Liverpool have reacted to the Sun editor getting an honour for his coverage of Hillsborough? Like Hillsborough, it may take some time for the full facts to come out. The people of Stafford deserve that day to come sooner rather than later.

Staffordians' reaction to Julie Bailey's CBE

Staffordians' reaction to Julie Bailey's CBE 

The reaction to the inclusion of Julie Bailey on the New Year's Honours List has provoked a largely negative reaction in Stafford, as shown by the Stafford Newsletter:  http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/STORIFY-Julie-Bailey-s-New-Year-Honour-sparks/story-20383350-detail/story.html

This reaction has prompted comments to the effect that Stafford people are parochial and that this reaction justifies the award of the CBE. If these commentators looked at the content of many of these comments, they'd learn that the reality is rather different. Also it is worth noting the entirely different reaction to the honour for the nurse Helene Donnelly. Many people were grateful for the way that JB raised the issues with the hospital:

"At the beginning it needed saying & she spoke out & the people of Stafford stood with her"

"her initial motives were good"

"I agree we owe a debt of gratitude to those who spoke out honestly to make things better"
"In the crisis years, Julie Bailey highlighted problems got people to look at it, money was invested and the whole hospital was turned around in two years" Cheryl Porter of SSH as reported here:
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/People-aiming-frustrations-Julie-Bailey-says/story-20396595-detail/story.html

The problem Stafford people have is with the direction the campaign took, particularly after the formation of the Save Stafford Hospital campaign (who tried desperately to get Cure involved):

"I'm not in denial!  I know the hospital was bad but it improved and she continued to kick it!"

"there were some particularly brave people who had suffered, but knew we need the hospital...think many knew that media coverage not in line with their own experience"

"but eventually the "celebrity" of it took over, and even when the problems were addressed & the hospital started to improve she refused to see ANY other option other than closure"

Another comment was about the change in direction after the SSH march, which Cure felt was a rejection of their campaign (it wasn't, but that was how they have taken it - including the organization of a counterdemo/photo-opportunity which didn't work). 

There are also comments about JB's tactics:

"dignity and respect she said according to Sky news app. Not if you're on Twitter IMO"

"so well done love, well done on destroying a hospital & a towns reputation"

"Not convinced by her I'm afraid. IMO accounts seem inconsistent, vague & at times implausible. Not denying mid-staffs probs"

"the woman who single handedly screwed Stafford Hospital has received a CBE despite all her claims being lies!"
The most consistent comments seemed to be about the allegations of a hate campaign, which the Stafford Police investigated and found insufficient evidence to proceed further.

The award of New Years Honours often simply reflect political patronage, and the comments reflect this feeling:

"Everyone of the group SSH should have an award for their outstanding efforts & self sacrifice - contrast that to another group now being thanked ....for their tireless efforts on behalf of Hunt & Co ."

"How is it that someone not in our area can campaign against our services and get a CBE? Sure, things needed changing but not like this. What we have isn't helping anyone and it's isolating us from the rest of the country and wrecking a community."

"you may well end up with some high powered "advisor" job with Camerons bunch, but the people of Stafford will NEVER forgive you"

"Julie Bailey gets a CBE in the new years honours. Perhaps we could give Paul Flowers a knighthood for services to banking"

Comments from Staffs Newsletter Storify and Twitter.

The Famous Vase Story

The Famous Vase Story

The famous Mid Staffs vase story has outlasted even the "zombie statistic" of 1200 "excess deaths (or 'state-assisted manslaughters' as Phil Hammond put it). The "excess death" statistics are not being put in the headlines now, due to a sustained effort to correct this misinformation. The vase story on the other hand has appeared in David Cameron's speeches more than once including his 2013 conference speech, and many times in the newspapers and news bulletins (although even the Telegraph issued an apology recently, stating that Francis had heard no "direct evidence" about drinking from vases). 

What is the vase story? Well it's clearly not just that some patients drank from vases. Hospitals often have confused patients, acute confusional states are common in people with dementia after all. No, the vase story specifically states that patients had to drink from vases not because they were confused, but because they were so thirsty due to a lack of water. Numerous commentators have pointed out the holes in this story, including the widespread policy of hospital wards to have no flowers in vases for infection control reasons. There are other issues with the story too that make it frankly implausible. 

One patient was very thirsty, and had to resort to getting water from the jugs of other patients. That is true, and undisputed. That was because he was on restricted fluids for medical reasons (as the BBC interview made clear). This may be required for heart or kidney failure, or low blood salt levels. There is another account of a confused female patient drinking from dirty vessels. Neither of these are consistent with the vase story per se.

Contrary to the accusations of Cure supporters, not one person is denying that there were episodes of poor cure at Mid Staffs. However, it is not denying the problems of Mid Staffs to challenge the exaggerations, embellishments and embroidering of the truth that have accompanied the efforts of Cure the NHS. It would be horrific if an NHS ward was so badly run that patients were having to drink from dirty flower vases, so the veracity of the story is fundamental to understanding how bad the care was. 

It seems ridiculous then to say that the vase story is unimportant, but this is the claim of Cure apologist and supporter Shaun Lintern. However Shaun Lintern has hitherto been unwilling to express an opinion on whether he believes the vase story. Simple enough question, yet he evades giving an answer. So Shaun Lintern - YES or NO?