The Metropolitan Police have apologised and paid £12,500 each to twin brothers Ashley and Russell Inglis for unprovoked assaults by police officers in the course of the protests outside the Israeli Embassy in London on 3 January 2009 against the Israeli military operations in Gaza. This outcome is a telling prelude to the appeals due to be heard on 13 July 2010 in the Court of Appeal against the draconian sentences imposed upon a number of other protestors convicted of violent disorder in the same series of protests.
Read the full press release on this story here.
A jury at Suffolk Coroners Court has returned a highly critical verdict at the inquest into the death of 36-year old Iqbal Khan at HMP Highpoint.
Further information about this case can be found here, and the full press release can be found here.
We are delighted to announce that Nogah Ofer has joined Bhatt Murphy where she will continue her specialist areas of practice in private and public law challenges to the criminal justice system. Nogah has a wealth of experience and her talent and dedication to her clients will be major boost to our team.
The High Court today gave judgment in HXA v Home Office, a case brought by an Iraqi who was detained for 10 months in 2005 whilst the Government sought to return him to Iraq on condition that he be held in detention. The ruling set out clear constraints on the use of detention for deportation. Details of the case can be found here.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) today released the report of Commander Cass into the events surrounding the death of Blair Peach in Southall, west London, on 23 April 1979.
The full press release on this story can be read here.
Raju Bhatt has been appointed by the Home Secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel. The Panel has been established to oversee the maximum possible public disclosure of governmental, police and other agency documentation on events surrounding the Hillsborough disaster of 1989.
Look here for the Home Secretary’s written statement on the appointment, here for the terms of reference for the Panel here for relevant press reports.
An inquest jury returned its verdict on the police shooting of a vulnerable man in Kent in December 2009. Dan Tucker, a 39 year old welder with a history of depression, was shot dead by police officers in a country lane near Stanstead whilst holding a replica weapon. The inquest heard that two officers fired one bullet each at Mr Tucker. The first shot hit his groin and was not fatal. The second shot hit his chest, killing him. The officer who fired the first shot gave evidence at the inquest that Mr Tucker was already falling to the ground when he was shot the second time.
There were no witnesses to the shooting, other than police officers. The officers who shot Mr Tucker were allowed to confer with one another and others for a number of days before providing their accounts of why he was shot. Mr Tucker’s sister (Corinna Tucker) judicially reviewed the decision to allow the officers to confer in the High Court in October 2008. This led to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) changing the rules on conferring on 23 October 2008.
Corinna Tucker’s solicitor, Tony Murphy of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, has issued the following statement on her behalf:
“Dan Tucker was the second vulnerable person to be shot holding a replica firearm by Kent police within the space of six months. His loved ones understandably had a burning need to understand why he was shot. This process was not helped by the officers who shot Dan being allowed to confer with one another and others before writing down what happened. It is some comfort to my client to know that the police are no longer allowed to do this, in part as result of this case”.
Corinna Tucker or her representatives do not intend to release any further information to the media. She and her family ask not to be contacted by the press so that they can now grieve the loss of their loved one.
On 29 January 2010 the High Court approved the financial settlement of £100,000. Carmen Quiroga and her 4 young children were detained unlawfully at Oakington Detention Centre for 42 days in 2004. Carmen and her children suffered appalling conditions of detention and sustained psychiatric injuries. On 1 October 2009, the Home Office admitted that they had falsely imprisoned the family.
The full press release can be read here.
The second edition of Hamish Arnott and Simon Creighton's book 'Parole Board Hearings: Law & Practice' has been published by Legal Action Group. Copies of the book can be purchased direct from LAG.
In R (on the application of Keith Lewis) v. HM Coroner for Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire, the Court of Appeal has found that in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 2 ECHR, inquests must identify system failings that might have prevented deaths in custody even where it can never be known whether the defects in the system would have prevented the death.
A copy of the full press release can be found here.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
On 26 November 2009, Fiona Murphy spoke at the ICCL’s second annual lawyers’ dinner concerning the work of Bhatt Murphy solicitors and the journey we have followed to craft a practice in human rights work.
A copy of Fiona's talk can be downloaded here.
A jury at an inquest into the death of 32-year old man in Brixton Prison returned a damning verdict on 24 November 2009 finding that neglect, systemic failings and gross failure to provide basic medical care contributed to his death.
The deceased had a history of vulnerability and had made a serious suicide attempt nine months previously. A letter that accompanied him to prison from his housing support worker warned that he had expressed on numerous occasions that he would commit suicide if he ever returned to custody. No-one at the prison admitted to having seen the letter.
On his arrival at HMP Brixton the deceased was referred twice to the mental health outreach team for an assessment of his mental health needs. Neither referral was followed up. Nor was any attempt made to obtain his community health records which would have made clear the level of risk that he presented to himself. In addition he was prescribed the wrong medication and ceased taking his medication altogether in the weeks before his death but no attempt was made to act upon either omission.
The jury found:
"The Jury believe that [the deceased’s] death was contributed to by neglect and that there was a gross failure to provide basic medical care …The Jury also believe that there is a clear and direct causal connection between the failures for rendering care and that if these failures had not occurred, this may have prevented [his] death."
In addition to the findings of the jury the coroner indicated that he would be making a number of recommendations aimed at preventing future deaths in similar circumstances, including that the healthcare department be involved in the continuous care of a prisoner from the moment he is identified at being at risk of suicide or self harm.
The deceased’s family was represented by Alice Hardy of Bhatt Murphy and Ruth Brander of Doughty Street
The jury's verdict can be found here.
A jury at an inquest into the death of 15 year old Liam McManus returned a damning verdict finding that “systemic failings” in both the prison and the community contributed to his death. These failings meant that an accurate picture of Liam was never established by the prison resulting in him never receiving the right level of support.
Liam had been recalled to custody for breaching the terms of his licence. He had only 23 days left to serve before release when he was found hanging from a bed sheet tied to the window of his single cell on 29 November 2007. Liam was the thirtieth child to die in state custody since 1990. This is the second inquest in less than two years into the death of a child in HMYOI Lancaster Farms.
Throughout the seven week inquest the jury heard evidence of failings by many agencies involved in Liam’s care.
The jury found:
"…whilst some of the defects and factors identified may appear to have had a minimal impact, collectively they contributed to systemic failings in the care and support of Liam that contributed to the actions of Liam McManus that contributed to his death."
In addition to the findings of the jury the coroner reported that there were serious inadequacies in the performance of Social Services who had lost significant documents and had closed Liam’s file just before he was due to go into custody without apparent review on the assumption that Liam would be safeguarded by the prison. He also recommended that the YOS ensured that important information about young people was sent to Young Offender Institutions in a format that was readily accessible to the officers. The coroner indicated that he would be writing to the Youth Justice Board to ensure that his recommendations would be implemented.
Read the full press release on this story here and the jury's verdict here.
See the Guardian article on this story here.
On 3 November 2009 PC Mark Jones of 1 Area TSG at Paddington was acquitted of racially aggravated assault, assault and misfeasance in public office following an incident in the Edgware Road on 1 June 2007.
PC Mark Jones was the principal perpetrator in the assault upon Babar Ahmad on 2 December 2003.
On 18 March 2009, Sir Paul Stephenson made an unprecedented admission in Mr Ahmad's civil litigation. He admitted that his officers had subjected Mr Ahmad to a violent, sustained and unprovoked assault and that he had twice been placed in a life threatening neck hold in the back of a TSG carrier. He agreed to pay Mr Ahmad compensation and exemplary damages. The exemplary damages were intended to punish the Commissioner for the brutal actions of his officers.
Mr Justice Holroyde ordered that the press should not report PC Jones' true identity until after the conclusion of this criminal trial.
Read the full press release on this story here.
A jury at Kingston Crown Court has today given its verdict in the trial of five TSG officers who were charged with racially aggravated common assault and abuse, common assault and misfeasance in a public office upon Omar Mohidin, Basil Khan and Ahmed Hegazy on 1 June 2007.
PC Mark Jones and PS William Wilson were alleged to have racially abused and assaulted Mr Mohidin and Mr Khan in the back of a TSG “bully” van off the Edgware Road on 1 June 2007.
PC Jones was alleged to have threatened to assault Omar Mohidin (16 years) whilst calling him a “fucking Arab” and, upon hearing he was from Iraq aggressively shouting at him “Iraq, fucking Iraq, I have friends being killed there by fuckers like you”. Mr Mohidin was then allegedly told by PC Jones that it was his lucky day, and thrown out of the back of the “bully” van.
Basil Khan (16 years) alleged that he was pulled on to the carrier by PS William Wilson and PC Mark Jones and subjected to racial abuse and an assault by PS Wilson, who called him a “fucking cunt” and slapped him. Mr Khan alleges that he was then placed in a headlock by PC Jones and repeatedly punched and slapped. When Basil Khan said that he was from Kuwait, he alleges that PC Jones said, “You’re from Kuwait? You’re a fucking Arab cunt.” Mr Khan was unable to breathe and started to black out. He clapped his hands to try and get someone’s attention.
The evidence of the teenagers was supported by PC Onwugbonu - a black officer who gave evidence against his fellow officers.
Read the full press release on this story here.
The Chair of the Haringey Stop and Search Monitoring Group, who is also a member of the Black Independent Advisory Group to the Metropolitan Police, has been awarded compensation in litigation against the British Transport Police.
Ken Hinds, carnival organiser and community worker, took proceedings against the Chief Constable of British Transport Police in the High Court alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The trial was due to begin on 2 November 2009. The Chief Constable has now agreed to pay £22,000 compensation, has apologised to Mr Hinds and agreed to pay his legal expenses.
On 28 May 2004, Mr Hinds stopped to observe police searching a young black male at Seven Sisters Underground Station. PC Lucas, a constable of the British Transport Police told Mr Hinds to “Fuck off" and then falsely claimed to his colleague, PC Iroko that Mr Hinds had sworn at him. PC Lucas arrested and handcuffed Mr Hinds before taking him to Wood Green Police Station where he was detained for 4 hours. Mr Hinds was charged with using threatening words and behaviour.
Mr Hinds stood trial before Haringey Magistrates Court on 6 May 2005. PC Lucas and PC Iroko were cross-examined about the striking similarity between their statements, which they had not made together. PC Iroko denied relying upon PC Lucas’s statement to assist in making his own. Mr Hinds was acquitted: the Court indicated that it did not consider PC Iroko's account credible.
Mr Hinds fully cooperated with the police complaint process which took over 3 years to resolve. It emerged that PC Lucas had sent his statement to PC Iroko electronically and PC Iroko had then transposed parts of that statement into his own. This conduct was in flagrant breach of police procedures and entirely inconsistent with PC Iroko's evidence. Nevertheless, the officers received a written warning in relation to the manner in which they had compiled their evidence and the investigation did not address the false account they had given in evidence.
Read the full press release on this story here.
Simon Creighton and Hamish Arnott have had a brand new textbook on prison law published by Legal Action Group. Copies of "Prisoners: Law and Practice" can be purchased direct from LAG.
The Court of Appeal has indicated that sentencing judges must be careful as to the order in which consecutive sentences are passed because of the effect on ‘Home Detention Curfew’ (HDC). Bhatt Murphy instructed Pete Weatherby of Garden Court North Chambers and full details of the judgment can be found here.
Do police officers have the power under the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop the ordinary citizen from using a camera or mobile phone to record their conduct in the normal course of events? That is the question that is to be brought before the High Court in a challenge on behalf of Gemma Atkinson who was detained, handcuffed and manhandled when she used her mobile phone to record police officers searching her boyfriend. Further details on the case including footage of the incident can be found on the Guardian's website (here) and the BBC website (here).
Under the pretext of the Terrorism Act 2000, the officers demanded to see her phone and threatened her with arrest when she refused. The challenge seeks to address not only the lawfulness of the conduct of the officers involved in the incident but also the adequacy or otherwise of the guidance available to officers in such circumstances.
Details of the guidance published by the Metropolitan Police on 9 July 2009, apparently in response to this challenge, can be found on the MPS website (here).
A jury this week returned a narrative verdict into the death in custody on 31 July 2005 of Faisal Al-Ani. They found that Mr Al-Ani was suffering from an acute psychotic illness and an acute cardiac dysrythmia at the time of his death and died following “prolonged energetic restraint”.
They found that insufficient consideration had been given to his physical health in the course of the restraint but nonetheless concluded that the force used to restrain him was appropriate, and also that it was appropriate for the police to deviate from their training in restraint, and to use techniques which the police trainer who gave evidence to the inquest described in a report to the IPCC as “inappropriate”, “high risk” and “in contravention of all guidance”.
This is a disappointing outcome for the family, not least because of the very shocking nature of the CCTV images which can now be broadcast of the restraint which preceded the death, which shows Mr Al-Ani being dragged to the ground by means of an elbow strike to the back and a side neck lock, and thereafter being very forcibly restrained including by one officer apparently kneeling across his neck and back with his full weight for some minutes before being handcuffed and placed in a police car. Save for the police’s own accounts of having punched him and struck him with batons as he lay handcuffed in the back seat, the family feel that they may never know what happened in the car, such that Mr Al-Ani emerged minutes later at the police station apparently in a state of fatal collapse. They also heard that he was left lying face down in cuffs in the police station for several minutes following his arrival before an ambulance was even called but that he had by then already suffered a cardiac arrest from which he could not be saved.
Unfortunately, the Al-Ani family felt very let down by the IPCC’s subsequent investigation into the death eg they published wrong information in press releases, the dates on the officers’ notebooks were mis-read, witnesses were not questioned etc. As a result they have felt unable to place any reliance on the evidence the IPCC gathered or the conclusions they reached and have been concerned about the inevitable impact of those conclusions on the inquest.
Carolynn Gallwey of Bhatt Murphy represented the sons of the deceased. She says “This inquest has raised some disturbing questions about policing priorities and the ability of Essex police officers to identify and deal appropriately with mentally ill individuals. The inquest jury was effectively told that the police objective of securing “control and compliance” of even those suspected of trivial offences over-rides their right to be dealt with safely; that any level of force including very dangerous methods could potentially be justified to that end. In fact, we heard from one police support officer that Mr Al-Ani probably never even recognised as police officers the men who restrained him”.
Carolynn’s comment piece about the case can be found on the Guardian's website here, and their full story on the death can be found here.
The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police has agreed to pay a young man with learning difficulties, Gareth Williamson, £20,000 in damages and at least £50,000 in costs in recognition of a serious failure by the police to properly investigate a robbery committed on Mr Williamson in Rushden, Northants on 15 April 2007.
A detailed apology recently extended to Mr Williamson on behalf of the Chief Constable in response to a civil claim apologises for “basic errors” made by Northamptonshire officers in their investigation of Mr Williamson’s repeat robbery by local criminals.
Mr Williamson, who is 19 years of age, was mugged twice in 2007 whilst he was travelling on his moped, first in January and then in April. On both occasions thieves made off with his moped and appeared to be targeting Mr Williamson due to his learning difficulties. A successful criminal prosecution was taken against the person responsible for the January robbery. However just before Mr Williamson was due to give evidence in court against for the first robbery, he was forced off his moped a second time in April 2009 and chased into a nearby pub where customers and staff came to his aid. All of these events were captured on CCTV.
Mr Williamson and his family immediately contacted the police, not least as they were concerned that the two robberies might be linked. The response Mr Williamson received from the officer assigned to investigate the crime and his supervising officers was deeply inadequate. The Williamsons were particularly concerned that Gareth was not being treated as a reliable witness purely as a result of his mild learning difficulties and notwithstanding that his account was confirmed by witnesses in the pub and CCTV. Mr Williamson reported his concerns to Northamptonshire Police’s internal watch dog, the Professional Standards Department, who initially failed to respond to his complaint and took no steps to arrange for his attackers to be apprehended. This left Mr Williamson with no choice except to instruct solicitors to begin legal proceedings against the Chief Constable for disability discrimination and breaches of the Human Rights Act at Central London County Court in October 2007. The Professional Standards Department later partially upheld Mr Williamson’s complaint in August 2008.
In response to civil claim the Chief Constable has finally acknowledged that the investigation into the April robbery was “poor” and that the police “did not give Mr Williamson the service we should have done”. The Chief Constable has also accepted that “failings in the investigation” were not picked up by senior officers and “this failure allowed a poor investigation to continue”. In recognition of this but without making any formal admission of liability, the Chief Constable has agreed to pay Mr Williamson £20,000 in damages and £50,000 on account of costs. The full amount of costs has yet to be decided.
Gareth Williamson said as follows:
“I hope that lessons will be learned from my case so that other people with learning difficulties will be protected by the police. I was not believed because I had learning difficulties and as result the people who attacked me still have not been brought to justice. That means I got less rather than more protection from the police as a result of my learning difficulties, which cannot be right.”
Mr Williamson’s parents Alison and Mark Williamson said as follows:
“What shocked us most was that senior officers, even within the Professional Standard Department, did not treat Gareth’s concerns seriously or take steps to catch his attackers. It should not take a court case for that to happen and the people who robbed him are still out there. We hope that publicising this case will mean that other people with disabilities will receive better treatment from the police. ”
Mr Williamson’s solicitor, Tony Murphy of Bhatt Murphy solicitors said:
“The Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act required Northamptonshire police to conduct an effective investigation into the robbery on Gareth Williamson, which the police accept did not happen. This outcome shows that the police can be made accountable in the courts for failed investigations, although it should not have required litigation for the police to honour its duties to people with disabilities in Northamptonshire. Sadly I am dealing with these kinds of cases nationwide.”
Click here for the full text of the Northamptonshire Police apology.
Click here for the Guardian coverage of this story
A high court judge has this week approved an out of court settlement in which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, has admitted that his officers assaulted and false imprisoned five protestors during a lawful protest outside an Embassy in London on 30 October 2006. The protestors issued a claim against the Metropolitan Police at the High Court in 2007 and the Commissioner took the unusual step of formally admitting legal liability in the face of overwhelming evidence that his officers had abused their position.
The Commissioner has agreed to pay the protestors £85,000 in damages plus costs, which will bring the total figure to over £100,000.
A detailed apology has been issued to the protestors on behalf of the Metropolitan Police stating that it was in: “no doubt about the significant effect that this matter has had on you and your democratic right to peaceful protest”.
One of the protestors Mr Jeremie Fernandez said as follows:
“We were jumped on by police officers during a peaceful protest, handcuffed, locked up for forty hours, denied police bail and then dragged through the criminal courts on false charges - all in an attempt to silence our protest.”
The protestors’ solicitor Tony Murphy of Bhatt Murphy said as follows:
“What we are seeing, not least with G20 clients, is a culture of violence within the police and the systemic abuse of protestors’ rights. This case shows that if the police do not make a retreat from coercive policing, the cost to public confidence and to the public purse will be devastating.”
The full text of the apology can be found here.
Read more about this story in the Guardian here and in The Times here.
Tony Murphy is acting for a number of protestors in challenges to the policing of the G20 protests and is pursuing both claims for assault and challenges to the lawfulness of the policing itself. Tony spoke to The Observer and The Guardian about these issues .
The High Court has ruled that the prison service does not have the power to destroy a prisoner's property after it has been confiscated, even where the property is not permitted in a prison. A sumary of the judgment can be found here.
The case was brought by Bhatt Murphy on behalf of a former prisoner, Mark Coleman, who complained that a mobile telephone confiscated from him while in prison should not have been destroyed but should have been given to him on his discharege from custody. Mrs Justice Dobbs concluded that the prison Rules do not authorsie the destruction of such property as once it has been removed from the prisoner, it no longer poses a threat to prison security.
Raju Bhatt acted as the "Specialist Adviser" to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the purposes of their Legislative Scrutiny of Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Bill (Coroners Reform) as reflected in the Committee's Eighth Report of Session 2008-09. A copy of the report can be found here.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, has today admitted that his officers subjected Mr Babar Ahmad to grave abuse during his arrest on 2 December 2003, abuse consisting of a prolonged and violent series of gratuitous assaults which Mr Ahmad considers to amount to torture. This dramatic development arose today during the course of Mr Ahmad’s civil trial for battery against the Commissioner before Mr Justice Holroyde at the High Court in London.
In the face of overwhelming evidence the Commissioner has made an unprecedented admission that:
• Metropolitan officers subjected Mr Ahmad to a sustained and brutal beating occasioning him multiple injuries and despite Mr Ahmad offering no resistance whatsoever;
• An officer twice placed Mr Ahmad in a life threatening neck hold causing Mr Ahmad to feel that he was about to die;
• Officers openly mocked Mr Ahmad's Islamic faith;
• Officers deliberately wrenched Mr Ahmad about by his handcuffs causing him excruciating pain;
• An officer grabbed Mr Ahmad's testicles; and
• Officers assaulted and abused Mr Ahmad in his home, in a police van and in the yard at Charing Cross Police Station – long after his arrest.
Despite the gravity of these acts the Commissioner has refused to apologise and he does not propose to take any action against those responsible. He has offered to pay Mr Ahmad £60,000 in damages, in addition to his legal expenses, from police funds. The agreed compensation includes aggravated and exemplary damages in condemnation of the conduct of the responsible officers and the Metropolitan Police as an institution.
The Commissioner was forced to take the extraordinary step of admitting liability when a pattern of similar allegations was uncovered against some of the responsible officers. When the Commissioner was required to disclose evidence in this regard, his lawyers informed the Court that “a number of large mail sacks" had been "mislaid in the internal dispatch of the MPS", containing what is believed to be yet further similar allegations. Mr Justice Holroyde demanded further investigations to locate the missing mail sacks and the Commissioner responded by admitting liability. The Commissioner has yet to confirm the current whereabouts of the mail sacks. Earlier in the proceedings several officers including the supervising officer, refused to give evidence at trial on behalf of the Commissioner.
Fiona Murphy, solicitor for Mr Ahmad of Bhatt Murphy said:
“It is deeply concerning that the Commissioner is prepared to allow officers on his watch to violently abuse a member of the public with impunity. The papers will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for urgent consideration of criminal charges against the officers concerned and for an investigation as to whether events surrounding the mislaid mail sacks constitute evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
The horrifying nature and volume of complaints against these officers should have provoked an effective response from the Metropolitan Police and the IPCC long ago. Instead, it has fallen to Babar Ahmad to bring these proceedings to achieve public recognition of the wrong that was done to him. "
Please click on the links below to download the following related documents:
The full press statement, including notes to editors;
A court order confirming the Commissioner's admission of Mr Ahmad's detailed allegations of assault and abuse;
A copy of the Particulars of Claim referred to in the order;
Mr Ahmad's counsel, Phillippa Kaufmann of Doughty Street's Chambers opening note read to the court on 16 March 2009;
Bhatt Murphy's note of proceedings in open court on the afternoon of 16 March 2009 with passages pertaining to the similar allegations, missing evidence, unwilling witnesses and lost mail sacks highlighted in bold.
In a settlement approved by the High Court on 9 February 2009 the Home Office accepted that a family from the Republic of Congo were unlawfully arrested and unlawfully detained at Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre
The family - who included a one year old baby and a child of eight - were asylum seekers at the time and they have now been given leave to stay in the country. Their claim related to their arrest and detention between the 6 June 2006 and 3 August 2006 (57 days) and 29 September 2006 and 2 October 2006 (3 days). On both occasions they were detained at Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre.
In the face of court proceedings brought by the family, the Home Office has accepted that their arrests and subsequent detentions was unlawful as they could not have been lawfully removed from the country.
Both detentions followed much criticised “dawn raids” with large numbers of uniformed officers arriving to arrest the family at their then homes in the West Midlands, as well as the controversial practice of detaining children under the Immigration Act.
These events caused both children to suffer psychiatric damage, the younger child suffering from an adjustment disorder and the older child also suffering post traumatic stress disorder. The children remained in detention despite the fact that Bedfordshire Social Services and a psychologist raised with the Home Office their concerns about the impact of the detention on them.
Mark Scott, of Bhatt Murphy solicitors who acted for the family commented that;
“this case demonstrates not only the very damaging impact that detention has on children but the wholesale failure of the Home Office to comply with their own policy and the commitments given to Parliament that detention of children is only used as a measure of last resort and even then for the shortest possible time.”
The identity of the children is protected by a Court Order.
The Administrative Court has found that a Coroner acted unlawfully when conducting an inquest into the death of Adam Rickwood, a 14 year old boy who died in Hassockfield STC. The Coroner for the North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington refused to rule on the legality of the force used on Adam shortly before his death and Mr Justice Blake considered that this resulted in a flawed inquiry and verdict. A new inquest will now have to be held.
Read Bhatt Murphy's press release here. Read the full judgment here.
The House of Lords have upheld the Secretary of State's appeal against the finding that it was unlawful for him to reject a parole recommendation to release a prisoner serving a long determinate prison sentence.
The case had been brought by Wayne Black - represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors - who is serving a prison sentence of 24 years. He was recommended for parole in 2007 but the Secretary of State rejected this recommendation. The Court of Appeal ruled that this breached Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights but that decision has now been overtutrned by a 4-1 majority in the House of Lords.
The Lords (Lord Phillips dissenting) found it "bizarre" that Jack Straw should want to keep this power as this is the only group of prisoners whose release he can now veto. However, they did not consider that previous European Court decisions allowed them to reach the conclusion that the parole procedure for prisoners serving detemrinate sentences engaged Article 5(4) of the Convention which would require the release decision to be taken by an independent court rather than the executive.
On 14 .11.08 partway through a final hearing before the High Court, the Home Office accepted liability for the unlawful detention of an unaccompanied asylum seeking child.
It was accepted that after the Claimant notified the Border and Immigration Agency she was a child, their policy required that she should have been referred to the Children’s Panel at the Refugee Council for independent specialist advice and support. There was evidence before the Court that had the referral been made, the Panel would have secured the Claimant’s release. The failure to make the referral was therefore considered causative of the Claimant’s detention.
It was accepted that the Claimant was unlawfully detained with adults for a period of 42 days. A copy of the basis of the Home Office’s concession can be found here.
A coroner returned a verdict that was highly critical of the treatment given by Kettering General Hospital to Mrs Benson, who was just 29 years old when she died. The coroner expressed concern that a failure to properly record patient observations meant that treatment opportunities were lost.
Further details can be found here.
A High Court Judge today called for reform of the practice which allows police officers to confer with one another before recording their recollection of a fatal police shooting. Mr Justice Underhill delivered his judgment this morning in response to applications for judicial review brought by the family of Mr Dan Tucker who was shot by Kent Police on 29 December 2007 and the family of Mr Mark Saunders who was shot by Metropolitan Police Offices on 6 May 2008.
The families argued that the investigations conducted into the deceased’s death by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) failed to comply with the Human Rights Act owing to the fact that the police officers involved in the shootings were allowed to confer with one another in each case before recording their first account of the shootings. This raised a risk of collusion between the officers and/or contamination of their evidence, thus rendering the investigations ineffective, not least as the families could not be expected to have confidence in an investigation founded on potentially tainted evidence.
Mr Justice Underhill’s judgment echoed the IPCC’s longstanding concern that allowing officers to confer in these cases risked breaching the State’s duty under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights to conduct an effective investigation into deaths and/or serious injury involving the police . The IPCC has expressed concerns in this regard since 2006, including in relation to the deaths of Harry Stanley and Jean Charles De Menezes. It is calling on the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Police Federation to revise the guidance provided to officers so that the presumption is against officers conferring before providing their first account in these cases save in exceptional circumstances. This is in order to obtain the best evidence from officers and to engender the confidence of bereaved families and the wider public in these investigations.
ACPO responded to the public concern about the practice of officers conferring by initiating a review of its existing guidance, which permits conferring. This review has so far taken over two and a half years and has been met with opposition from the Police Federation. On 23 October 2008 ACPO’s Chief Constable’s Council is to consider revised guidance. Following this, a national circular outlining the proposed ACPO position in relation to this issue will be issued.
The Court of Appeal has held that the rules currently in force allowing children in custody to be restrained for reasons of “good order and discipline” are unlawful and must be quashed. The challenge was made in relation to amendment to the Secure Training Centre Rules which were brought into force in July 2007.
Read the full judgment here. Read Bhatt Murphy's press release here.
In an order agreed at the High Court today, the Secretary of State will reconsider whether Kevin Lane should remain a category A prisoner. Kevin maintains his innocence for an alleged ganagland killing and despite his exemplary prison behaviour, remains cateogry A some 10 years after his conviction.
Kevin has been refused downgrading until he attends courses that are designed to "address his offending behaviour". However, in order to complete the courses he must admit his guilt. Kevin has an application pending before the CCRC to challenge his conviction and feels that he is caught in a "catch 22" situaiton where the secretary of State is trying to force him to choose between clearing his name and making some progress in prison.
Tony Murphy of Bhatt Murphy is currently acting for four NGOs (INQUEST, JUSTICE, Liberty and Mind) in an intervention before the House of Lords in two landmark cases on public authorities' duties to protect victims of crime (Van Colle v The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire; and Smith V The Chief Constable of Sussex). The four day hearing commenced on 19 May and judgment is awaited.
The Secretary of State has accepted that the monitoring of telephone calls between Harry Roberts and his solicitor, Simon Creighton of Bhatt Murphy, should not have happened. In a written Ministerial Statement he has set out steps to prevent a reoccurence.
Whilst the acceptance that this should not have occured is welcomed, Mr Roberts takes issue with some of the findings. He maintains that he did notfiy the authorities of his legal telephone numbers and he is disappointed that no proper explanation has been given for the failure to notify him of the breach. The matter only came to light by accident and it is a matter for concern that no-one thought to take responsibility voluntarily.
Simon Creighton, on behalf of Mr Roberts, commented:
“My client is pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that there was no justification or lawful basis for his legally privileged calls to have been monitored. He remains worried, however, that this could have occurred at all and it is difficult to understand how the system failed to provide any real safeguards in terms of self-regulation. He also wishes to make it clear that he did inform the authorities of his legally privileged numbers and has provided a copy of the form he used to do this to them. It must be remembered that this all occurred against the backdrop of a secret court procedure that had already been strongly criticised by two senior law Lords and this makes it all the more reprehensible that the basic principles of justice were not followed. I am also concerned that no-one saw fit to admit what had happened and that there is no proper explanation given for the failure to notify my client of this breach, even after the secrecy order in relation to his parole review had been lifted. My client remains deeply concerned at this course of events and is worried that there are still not any proper safeguards in place to prevent a reoccurrence in the future.”
The Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal brought by Wayne Black that the Secretary of State breached his Convention rights by rejecting a Parole Board recommendation for his release.
Wayne Black is serving a prison sentence of 24 years. The Parole Board recommended he should be released but this recommendation was rejected by the Minister for Justice. The High Court upheld that decision but the Court of Appeal has ruled that the legislation is in breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention as thedecision should be made by a judicial body and not the executive.
The full judgment can be read here.
Court finds that there was flawed and unlawful decision making leading to the introduction of new rules governing the use of restraint on children in secure training centres.
Mark Scott of Bhatt Murphy said:
"It is disappointing that an application to Court had to be made for the true nature of the change in the rules governing the use of restraint of vulnerable children in STCs to be recognised by the Ministry of Justice. Albeit that it is to be welcomed that the court have recorded the unlawful failures of decision making prior to the introduction of the rules, it is of concern that the rules have been allowed to stay in place when important safeguards of consultation and a race assessment have still not been carried out."
Read the INQUEST press release about this story here.
Read the full judgment here.
Lawyers representing complainants in respect of police misconduct have withdrawn their participation from the Advisory Board of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in a damming vote of no confidence in the watchdog body.
The Police Action Lawyers Group (PALG), a nationwide coalition of lawyers representing members of the public on complaints against police, has been involved on the IPCC Advisory Board since its inception in April 2004. Over the years, PALG members have found themselves inundated with an endless flow of cases where the IPCC has failed to properly handle complaints about police misconduct, ranging from racism, violence and fabrication of evidence, to corruption and even deaths in police custody. As far back as 2005, PALG submitted to the IPCC a dossier of cases highlighting serious failings which had remained unaddressed depsite repeated representations. The continuing lack of any progress in the organisation has now left PALG with no option but to resign from the IPCC Advisory Board and call for immediate action to address the growing crisis of confidence in the IPCC.
PALG representative Tony Murphy said as follows:
"The rigorous investigation of complaints against the police has long been held as essential for our democracy. The IPCC leadership is failing to fulfil its responsibilities in relation to that vital task. Urgent action is needed if the IPCC is not to become another obstacle on the road to police accountability "
Read Tony Murphy's Comment is Free article here.
Further articles in the press about this story can be found here and here.
Read the response from the Chair of the IPCC here.
The Court of Appeal have upheld the finding that the Parole Board is not sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State in a case started by Bhatt Murphy. Details of the case can be found here.
The judgment maintains the finding that the Parole Board is not sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State for Justice and suggests that a clearer sponsorship arrangement is necessary. The Secretary of State will also need to decide how properly to commodate the Parole Board within the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there is no appearance of bias in the future. The full judgment can be read here.
Bhatt Murphy are delighted to announce that Tony Murphy has joined the firm as a new partner. Tony, who was previously a partner at Bindmans, specialises in actions against the police.
Bhatt Murphy represented a life sentenced prisoner who has successfully challenged the refusal by the Secretary of State to move him to open conditions.
Robert Hill succeeded in establishing that the decision to reject a parole recommendation on his move was unlawful on the individual facts of his case. Mr Justice Irwin, went on to hold that the Secretary of State was operating an unbalanced policy whereby he always accepted advice from the Parole Board which was unfavourable to prisoners but that he now rejected advice which is positive to prisoners in nearly 40% of cases.
Bhatt Murphy acted for a former prisoner who has successfully challenged the lack of independence of the Parole Board from the Secretary of state for Justice. The full judgment of the court can be found here.
Hamish Arnott, who acted for the prisoner, commented that: "the case is important as it demonstrates the need for judicial bodies to be independent from the executive, both in practice and in form. Given that the Secretary of State is a party to all parole applications, it is difficult to understand how he can also retain ultimate responsibility for appointments to the Board and its funding. Although leave to appeal has been granted, I am hopeful that the Court of Appeal will uphold this decision."
The family of Roger Sylvester, who died after being arrested and restrained by police officers, have expressed their disappointment at the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission not to recommend any disciplinary action against the officers involved. Further information on the decision and a statement from the family can be obtained from INQUEST.
Bhatt Murphy have successfully challenged a refusal by the Secretary of State to move a lifer to open conditions. Robert Hill succeeded in establishing that the decision to reject a parole recommendation on his move was unawlful and the High Court wnet on to hold that the Secretary of State was operating an unbalanced policy whereby he always accepted advice from the Parole Board which was unfavourable to prisoners but that he now rejected postive advice in nearly 40% of cases.
The Judge who presided over the inquest into the death of Gareth Myatt, the only child to die in custody following restraint, wrote today to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor saying that it would be ‘wholly unforgivable and a double tragedy’ if there was any delay in learning from and acting upon the lessons of Gareth’s death. further details can be found here.
Harry Roberts was granted permission by the High Court to challenge the decision of the Parole Board to rely on secret evidence at his parole review which concluded in December 2006. He argued that the secrecy was unnecessary and prevented him from having a fair hearing of his case. A full hearing of his challenge will take place in 2008.
The just has returned an verdict into the death of Gareth Myatt who died while being restrained is a secure training centre. The verdict outlined a series of failings by the authorities. Further details of the verdict can be found here.
Bhatt Murphy are delighted to announce that Hamish Arnott has joined the partnership. Hamish has worked at Bhatt Murphy for 6 years, specialising in prison law and immigration detention. We are also very excited to be able to welcome three new solicitors to the firm: Kim Bouwer and Alice Hardy have joined our police law team and Nancy Collins has joined the prison law team.
The jury delivered a narrative verdict at the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Adam Rickwood. Aged just 14 years at the time of his death, Adam is the youngest person to have died in penal custody for a quarter of a century. A press release issued on behalf of Adam's family can be found here.
Very substantial damages and an apology have been agreed in respect of the repeated sexual assault of a young girl by a police officer and her professional carers. Damages were sought in respect of the negligent investigation by the police of the victim's allegations. The police and the relevant local authority have made a payment of compensation and provided an acknowledgement of the sufering our client endured.
On 17 April 2007 the House of Lords will begin to hear an appeal in the case of R (Al-Skeini & Ors) v Secretary of State for Defence. The hearing will concern the extent to which the jurisdiction of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 may extend to civilian deaths at the hands of British soldiers in Iraq. Bhatt Murphy has been given permission to intervene at the hearing on behalf of 11 organisations – The Law Society of England and Wales, The Bar Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International Ltd, Justice, Liberty, Interights, The Association for the Prevention of Torture, British Irish Rights Watch, Kurdish Human Rights Project, The Redress Trust and the AIRE Centre.
The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the Home Secretary in the case brought by Bhatt Murphy on behalf of Paul Stellato. The Home Secretary had argued that it is lawful for the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to impose a harsher parole system retrospectively but this argument was rejected and the Lords ordered the release of Mr Stellato. The full judgment can be found here.
Fiona Murphy gave a presentation to the All Party Parliament Group on Army Deaths concerning the legal and human rights issues relevant to public funding for controversial inquests concerning members of the armed forces. A copy of her paper may be downloaded from here.
Home Office admits it has operated an unlawful policy resulting in the detention of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Following litigation on behalf of a group 34 Claimants, all of whom were children when detained, the Home Office admitted today that the age dispute policy which permitted immigration officers to treat child asylum-seekers as adults and so subject them to detention was unlawful.
See full press release for further details.
The High Court today approved the terms of an agreed settlement between 197 Claimants and the Home Office in a claim arising out of the inadequacy of the medical care the Claimants were given on entering prison.
It is well established that prisoners are entitled to the same standard of healthcare as that offered in the community. In this case it was clear that the medical care offered to the Claimants in this action fell below acceptable standards. The Home Office have accepted that this was the case in admitting full liability in all cases and settlement figures have now been agreed.
It is to be hoped that this case will contribute to ensuring that those in prison are given the same standard of healthcare as that expected to be offered within the community.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, has ordered a fresh inquest into the mysterious death of HH Judge Andrew Chubb in July 2001.
The decision comes upon a hearing of proceedings before the High Court brought by Kerry Sparrow with the authority of the Attorney General. Quashing the verdict of accidental death returned by the East Somerset Coroner in December 2001, Lord Phillips ruled that “it would be contrary to the interests of justice to leave undisturbed, in a case which has been the subject of wide public interest, a verdict which is based on only part of the relevant evidence and which the balance of the relevant evidence suggests may be open to doubt”.
Ms Sparrow was represented by Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy, first in her application to the Attorney General for his authority, and then in her ensuing proceedings before the High Court. See attached press release on behalf of Ms Sparrow and approved judgment for details.
An inquest jury has held that failures by state agencies to properly safeguard a vulnerable young man were ‘contributory factors' in his death. Karl Lewis, whose family was represented by Bhatt Murphy solicitors at the inquest, was just 18 years old when he was found hanged in his cell at Stoke Heath Young Offender’s Institution. See INQUEST press release for details.
An inquest jury has found that a vulnerable prisoner died because the prison in which he was held did not properly recognize his vulnerability. Bhatt Murphy acted for the family of Dennis Williams who was found hanged in Bedford prison in December 2004. The jury noted that the prison’s monitoring system had been closed too early and as a result, Mr Willams had died 'unintentionally from his own hands'. See the INQUEST press release for details.
The High Court has ordered a fresh inquest into the death of Rachel Whitear. Rachel, a recovering heroin addict, was found dead on 12 May 2000 holding a syringe. Rachel’s parents, who were represented by Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy, had complained about the adequacy of the original investigation and the Court held that as well as other failures in the first inquest, Rachel’s family had been denied the opportunity to properly participate in the inquest. See attached BBC news report.
On 15 September 2006 Simon Creighton and Hamish Arnott both gave papers to a conference about the Parole Board organised by the Faculty of Law at Cambridge University and the Parole Board. All of the conference papers are to be published in a book later this year. Hamish spoke about the standards of fairness at recall hearing and Simon Creighton on the independence of the Board. See attached details.
Bhatt Murphy successfully challenged a police caution issued to Mr Wyman on the grounds that the police did not have sufficiently clear evidence or admissions to administer the caution. The court issued guidelines on future conduct in such cases and the caution has been expunged form our client’s record. See attached judgment.
Bhatt Murphy Solicitors are currently acting for a number of prisoners who have been removed from open prison conditions or refused release because of the chaos at the Home Office about the status of foreign national prisoners (see article). The problems run from prisoners who do face the prospect of deportation being refused release at the end of their prison sentences through to those prisoners who have British citizenship but are being treated as if they are susceptible to deportation. Judicial review proceedings have been brought on behalf of two prisoners in this second group.
Simon Creighton discusses the current issues regarding legal aid for parole hearings (see comment).
High Court highlights long standing failure by the Home Office to comply with legal requirements to protect torture victims from being detained at Oakington Immigration Detention Centre.
On 22 May 2006 The High Court gave judgment in a case which highlighted a “persistent and sustained failure” by the Home Office to abide by the legal requirement to ensure that detainees in immigration detention centres are medically examined within 24 hours of their detention. This failure led to the unlawful detention of two asylum seekers at Oakington Removal Centre in May 2005, who should have been assessed as unsuitable for detention as there was medical evidence that they had been tortured in their countries of origin. Read More
Very substantial damages and apology were agreed in the Sheffield High Court in respect of the assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution of the claimant arising from an unlawful and racially motivated stop and search. The case raised novel and complex issues of causation in respect of the psychiatric illness developed by the claimant after these events and the level of damages achieved together with the apology, reflected acceptance on the part of the Chief Constable that his officers’ actions had caused the claimant severe mental health problems.
Bhatt Murphy was commissioned by the Deepcut Review to provide an opinion concerning the rights and entitlements of bereaved families within controversial death inquiries. The opinion of Fiona Murphy has been published as an appendix to the Review on 30 March 2006. A copy can be downloaded here. The full Review document is available at www.deepcutreview.org.uk.
In Butchart v The Home Office, 15 March 2006 the Court of Appeal has considered a strike out application by the Home Office in respect of a psychiatric injury claim by Mr Butchart arising from the suicide of his cell mate, Ian Holms. Read More
Public law litigation undertaken by Bhatt Murphy exposed serious child protection concerns about the policy and practice of the Immigration Service in detaining children asylum seekers whose age was disputed without undertaking full age assessments and which had led to many children being wrongfully detained and fast tracked led to a change in the policy to provide greater protection for children before decisions were made to detain and fast track.
Hamish Arnott and Simon Creighton’s new book, Parole Board Hearings: Law and Practice was published by Legal Action Group in January 2006. The book is the first practitioners’ guide to the parole system and the preparation and presentation of cases to the Parole Board.
Sir Duncan Nichol, Chairman of the Parole Board, has prepared the forward to the book and stated, "I wholeheartedly welcome the chance to commend this book to its audience.”
The first review of the book by Andrew Keogh on Crimeline commented, “The authors are two of the most respected names in the field; they combine a sometimes rare feat in being able not only to practice at the highest level in their field, but also in being able to identify and explain to a beginner the core knowledge needed.”
Do police officers have the power under the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop the ordinary citizen from using a camera or mobile phone to record their conduct in the normal course of events? That is the question that is to be brought before the High Court in a challenge on behalf of Gemma Atkinson who was detained, handcuffed and manhandled when she used her mobile phone to record police officers searching her boyfriend. Further details on the case including footage of the incident can be found on the Guardian's website (here) and the BBC website (here).
Under the pretext of the Terrorism Act 2000, the officers demanded to see her phone and threatened her with arrest when she refused. The challenge seeks to address not only the lawfulness of the conduct of the officers involved in the incident but also the adequacy or otherwise of the guidance available to officers in such circumstances.
Details of the guidance published by the Metropolitan Police on 9 July 2009, apparently in response to this challenge, can be found on the MPS website (here).