Hi All, Whilst I know this may be a bit of a heavy read, I hope people will struggle through it. This man tried to say that because people had actually said he was guilty on the internet he may be deprived of the right to a fair trial. This was a serious consideration and website owners were asked to remove material about the case. His appeal was denied, but I do not think we can ignore the possibility that the purpose of Kate and Gerry McCann constantly seeking publicity is so that they can, at the end of the day, say, well look at all this stuff that has been written about us..how can we get a fair trial now?
Some months back I pointed out that if we got near to charges then comment on the case would have to be dramatically curtailed and I am seriously considering removing this blog now because I for one, would not wish to add to material on the internet that may enable them to raise this as a possible defence.
I realise this may be a disappointment to some people but feel that people will understand what I have always wanted is justice for Madeleine and I for one would not wish to add to anything that may detract from that although I would certainly welcome the views of others.
I hope that other web pages about the McCanns will consider this and think carefully about the Court's judgment below.
Viv x
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
Lord Justice General
Lord Macfadyen
Lord Kingarth
[2007] HCJAC 27
Appeal No: XC903/06
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
in
NOTE OF APPEAL
under section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
by
ANGUS ROBERTSON SINCLAIR
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
_______
Act: Shead, Jackson; Capital Defence Lawyers, Edinburgh
Alt: Stewart, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent
25 April 2007
The circumstances
[1] The appellant has been indicted to stand trial for the rape and murder of two young women. These offences are said to have been committed in October 1977. The appellant has lodged a devolution minute in which he contends that any trial of him for these offences would not be a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal and would thus infringe his right to such a trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. For the Crown to insist in his prosecution on this indictment would, he contends, be ultra vires of the Lord Advocate under section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. He seeks declarator to that effect. Declarator was refused by a single judge at a preliminary hearing. The appellant, with leave of that judge, appeals to this court under section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
[2] The appellant's contention is rested partly on the proposition that certain pre-trial publicity about him and about the circumstances of the offences is of such a character that a fair trial before an impartial tribunal cannot reasonably be expected. His minute also states that access to information on the internet (of a character gravely prejudicial to a fair trial) cannot realistically be controlled before or during any trial.
[3] The sequence of events which, it is alleged, resulted in the rapes and murders of the victims began in a public house, the World's End Public House, in the High Street, Edinburgh. In consequence the circumstances of their deaths have become known as "the World's End murders". For some time after their bodies were found, there was widespread publicity in the print media about their killing, but no one was apprehended. Interest was revived in the mid-1990s when against the background of advances in DNA technology there was fresh speculation in the print media that these, among a number of other unsolved murders, might be solved. This speculation continued until about 2004. It centred on the involvement of the appellant, not only in the two murders which form the basis of the present indictment but also as a possible suspect in four other murders of young women from different parts of Scotland.
[4] The appellant, who is now 61 years of age, has a very serious criminal record. In the early 1960s he received a lengthy prison sentence for lewd and libidinous practices and culpable homicide. In 1982 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for a catalogue of sexual offences, including rape. In 2001 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for offences of rape and murder, which had taken place in the early 1970s. There is clearly a thread of violent and sexual offending which runs through his previous convictions.
[5] The speculation in the print media in the ten years or so prior to 2004 included speculation that the appellant had committed, among other murders, the World's End murders. It made reference to his criminal record. Some of the relative articles included a photograph of the appellant as a young man. After the service on the appellant in March 2005 of a petition charging him with the present offences the print media speculation ceased.
[6] Also founded on by the appellant as prejudicial to his prospects of a fair trial before an impartial tribunal is a book entitled "Scotland's Killers from Manuel to Mitchell" published at the end of 2005. The author asserted at page 190 of the book that the appellant was responsible for the World's End murders. The prosecuting authorities took steps to remove it from sale. It was so removed in the course of 2006. Prior to that removal it had sold about 300 copies.
[7] Of most potential significance to the fairness of any trial of the appellant is the availability on the internet of material prejudicial to him. In the week prior to the hearing before the single judge a search, initiated on behalf of the appellant under the Google search engine with reference to his first name and surname, produced from United Kingdom sources a large number of entries, some of which clearly referred to the appellant. If the searcher then clicked on to the first of these entries, access was obtained to a site entitled "Murder, United Kingdom". On that site there was a clear and unequivocal claim that the appellant had been responsible for the World's End murders. There was also an indication that since May 2004 there had been over 1,300,000 hits on that site. Additionally, a search at that time under the heading "World's End murders" produced a number of other sites which linked the appellant to these murders and to other unsolved crimes. That material may be summarised as recycling many of the claims and speculations which had earlier appeared in the media, in particular in the print media, about the appellant's involvement in these murders, his previous convictions and his supposed links to other unsolved crimes.
The submissions of parties
[8] Mr. Shead for the appellant submitted that the relevant test was whether, in light of the prejudicial material, a fair trial could reasonably be expected (Beggs v H.M. Advocate 2001 S.C.C.R. 836, per Lord Coulsfield at paras. [3] - [4]). At common law the issue was whether, in the light of the prejudicial publicity, it would be oppressive to proceed to trial; it would be oppressive where the risk of prejudice was so grave that no direction of the trial judge, however careful, could reasonably be expected to remove it (Stuurman v H.M. Advocate 1980 J.C. 111, per Lord Justice General Emslie at page 122). Under the Convention the starting point was the appellant's right to a fair trial. That right was unqualified. It was not to be subordinated to the public interest in the detection and suppression of crime (Montgomery v H.M. Advocate 2000 S.C.C.R. 1044, per Lord Hope of Craighead at page 1106). In the present case the issue was whether there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure a fair trial. The degree of adverse publicity was similar to that described in Beggs. The single judge was not exercising a discretion (McGill v H.M. Advocate 1997 S.C.C.R. 230, per Lord Justice General Rodger at page 237). It was accordingly unnecessary for the appellant to meet the test for reviewing a discretionary decision. An element of judgment was involved; but what was being reviewed was essentially a matter of law, analogous to whether there was a sufficiency of evidence to warrant a conviction. When the position in respect of safeguards (present and absent) was considered cumulatively it could be seen that the single judge had erred in the conclusion at which he had arrived. In particular he had been unduly influenced by the Stuurman test; he had failed to recognise that this was an exceptional case; he had erred in concluding that what he described as "the more immediate and comprehensive safeguards" would be sufficient to avoid prejudicing the appellant's right to a fair trial. In Scottish practice "jury vetting" was not approved (Spink v H.M. Advocate 1989 S.C.C.R. 413). But, where necessary, the court could react by changing its practice (as in Pullar v H.M. Advocate 1993 S.C.C.R. 514; Pullar v United Kingdom 1996 S.C.C.R. 755). At present there was nothing which could be regarded as an adequate safeguard against a juror having access to prejudicial material on the internet. Contamination of a single juror was sufficient to contaminate the whole jury (McTeer v H.M. Advocate 2003 S.C.C.R. 282). The risk posed by internet access was not restricted to access by persons subsequently cited for jury service but extended to access had by empanelled jurors in the course of the trial. Practice in Scotland did not provide a safeguard against that risk. That risk could clearly lead to a trial being unfair (R. v Karakaya [2005] E.W.C.A. Crim. 346, [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 5). It had been acknowledged and provided for in certain other jurisdictions. Reference was made to a Guide to Jury Deliberations, given to potential jurors in Queensland, and to R. v K [2003] N.S.W.C.C.A. 406 and R. v Scaf [2004] N.S.W.C.C.A. 37 (both from New South Wales), the latter of which took into account the views expressed in R. v Mirza, R. v Connor and Rollock [2004] U.K.H.L. 2, [2004] 1 A.C. 1118. Reference was also made to R. v Sherratt [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509, which demonstrated that wide-ranging safeguards, including jury vetting, were to be found in the Canadian courts. The court should grant a declarator that the Lord Advocate had no power to proceed to trial on the charges in the indictment, failing which it should lay down safeguards beyond those presently in place, sufficient to ensure that a fair trial could reasonably be expected.
[9] The advocate depute moved the court to refuse the appeal and to remit the case to a preliminary hearing already fixed for 1 May 2007. The single judge, it was submitted, had applied the correct test and had had regard to all relevant and to no irrelevant material. His decision should not be altered. It could not be said at this stage that it would be ultra vires of the Lord Advocate to proceed to trial. Although the single judge's decision-making power might not be discretionary in the fullest sense, a substantial element of judgement was involved. In Beggs v H.M. Advocate the court had looked at the issue de novo only after identifying a possible error of approach by the single judge. In the present case it was accepted that there was a problem, but not an insurmountable problem, in relation to prejudicial publicity on the internet. The Crown had, since the hearing before the single judge, been able to take certain steps to mitigate that potential prejudice. With the co-operation of the website owner a particular item of concern had been removed from it - that concerning the appellant on the "Murder, United Kingdom" site. Further steps were being taken in relation to other sites. There was an important distinction between (1) pre-trial publicity affecting potential jurors (against which traditional safeguards were broadly sufficient) and (2) "intra-trial" publicity and its effect on empanelled jurors. It was clear from the single judge's Opinion that he had been addressed only on (1), which he had fully and adequately dealt with. What particular steps should be taken in relation to instructing empanelled jurors (particularly with regard to past or prospective use of the internet) was essentially a matter for the trial judge. There might, in the circumstances of this case, be advantage in possible instructions being discussed with parties at a preliminary or other hearing before the trial judge in advance of the trial. As to whether any "balancing act" was required under the Convention, the Crown reserved its position. The right of an accused to a fair trial under Article 6 might require to be balanced against the rights of victims or their relatives to have effective proceedings brought against persons accused of serious crime. It might on the other hand be that victims' rights could be encompassed within the scope of a "fair trial". It could not be right that a person could avoid trial because the process had been tainted by his own notoriety. If there were to be any suggestion that the holding of the trial in Edinburgh (as against in some other place) was prejudicial to the appellant, it was for him to raise that issue as appropriate.
Discussion
[10] In Montgomery v H.M. Advocate Lord Hope opined that a feature in the case of X. v Sweeney 1982 J.C. 70 (to which Lord Coulsfield had referred in the High Court) did not deprive the Stuurman test of its utility in the Article 6(1) context. Lords Slynn of Hadley, Nicholls of Birkenhead and Hoffman agreed with that part of Lord Hope's judgment. Lord Clyde did not opine on the applicability of the Stuurman test. In Beggs v H.M. Advocate the High Court (presided over by Lord Coulsfield) expressed the view that the test to be applied in the context of the Convention was that to be found in the Opinion of Lord Justice General Emslie in Stuurman, read in the light of the comments by Lord Justice General Rodger and Lord Hope in Montgomery v H.M. Advocate. In Stuurman Lord Justice General Emslie said:
"Each case will depend on its own merits, and where the alleged oppression is said to arise from events alleged to be prejudicial to the prospects of fair trial the question for the Court is whether the risk of prejudice is so grave that no direction of the trial Judge, however careful, could reasonably be expected to remove it".
Accordingly, there is built into the common law test the concept of a fair trial, a concept well recognised in the law of Scotland before the Convention was incorporated into domestic law. We find it unnecessary in this case to express any view on the matter raised and reserved by the advocate depute, namely, whether under the Convention there requires in some way to be brought into account the rights of victims of crime or their relatives. To the approved test in Stuurman we would add only this. The reference to "direction of the trial judge" should not be read narrowly but so as to encompass all instructions and advice which the trial judge may give to the jurors at the commencement or during the course of the trial. Additionally, it will be necessary to take into account safeguards inherent in the trial process itself and in the historical context in which it occurs, which may negative or militate against the influence of external prejudicial material. These will include, for example, the discipline of the jury listening to the evidence adduced in court and any lapse of time between the publication in question and the trial.
[11] In approaching the task of evaluation before him, the single judge said, at para. [28] of his Opinion:
"The outcome in each case will always depend upon an examination of its particular facts and circumstances, but where the alleged oppression arises from events said to be prejudicial to a fair trial, the question for the court is whether the issue of prejudice is so grave that no directions by the trial judge, however careful, could reasonably be expected to remove it. In other words the court will only require the indictment to be deserted if it is established, in the circumstances of the case, that the nature and extent of pre-trial publicity is such that it would not be reasonable to expect that the trial judge could secure a fair trial by means of appropriate directions to the jury. These special circumstances must be such as to satisfy the court that, having regard to the principles of substantive justice and a fair trial, to require an accused to face trial would be oppressive. This matter must be considered in all the circumstances of the case in the light of the degree and timing of pre-trial publicity in the media, the real and quantifiable coverage and availability on the internet, and the extent of the distribution of any other material. The issue also has to be considered against the background of the warning and advice given by clerks of court and judges at the outset of the trial, the process and immediacy of the trial itself in front of the jury, and the directions available to the judge in the course of his charge".
[12] We find no error in that approach. It involved no "undue" reliance on the Stuurman test (by which we understand it to be contended that the subsequent observations in Montgomery had not been taken into account) and it encompasses safeguards going beyond those secured by "directions", in any narrow sense, given by the trial judge.
[13] Having made his evaluation of the various classes of material said to be prejudicial to a fair trial, the single judge said:
"I have accordingly concluded that the more immediate and comprehensive safeguards, described earlier, will in all but the most exceptional cases, (of which this is not one), be sufficient to avoid prejudicing an accused's right to a fair trial. The chances of selected jurors actively seeking such material on the internet in the course of the trial may require to be managed by the court, but again I have no doubt that this can be achieved. I am therefore satisfied that individually and cumulatively all these sources of pre-trial publicity or publicity which may be available to jurors during a trial, are not such as would justify the desertion of proceedings in this case".
The safeguards to which the single judge there refers are those noted at para. [28] of his Opinion. Subject to an observation which we shall hereafter make about possible access by potential jurors to internet material in advance of the trial, the safeguards referred to are in our judgment such that a fair trial may reasonably be expected. As to the judge's reference to the present case not being exceptional, we do not understand him to mean that the material is not highly prejudicial; rather that the safeguards available are such that a fair trial can reasonably be expected and that the case is accordingly not such that the court should take steps to prevent it proceeding. The judge also notes in that paragraph that steps may require to be taken against the chances of the selected jurors actively seeking material on the internet in the course of the trial.
[14] The availability of the internet and its increasingly wide use by members of the public, including potential and serving jurors, presents a challenge for the administration of justice. While news reported and opinions expressed in the press or broadcasting media on a daily basis are themselves ephemeral, the internet provides ready access to historical material, including media items. At one time a person seeking reported information about a past event or about a particular individual would require to spend significant time, and possibly expense, in retrieving it from a public library or similar institution; now such information can be accessed by the pressing at home of a few controls on a computer. Moreover, persons with interests in particular fields, including criminal investigations and criminal histories, may choose to set up websites which provide links to historical and other materials. Such materials, if accessed by a juror or jurors, may in some circumstances be potentially highly prejudicial to the fairness of the trial of an accused.
[15] The dangers have been acknowledged and addressed in other jurisdictions. In Queensland, Australia statutory provision has been made to the effect that a person who has been sworn as a juror in a criminal trial must not inquire about the defendant until the trial is over. "Inquire" is defined as including "(a) search an electronic database for information, for example, by using the internet; and (b) cause someone else to inquire". The prohibition is backed by criminal sanction, including the possibility of imprisonment. In R. v K. the New South Wales Court of Appeal recommended that legislation along these lines should be introduced into that State.
[16] In this jurisdiction there is no such legislation but, as the single judge recognised, the chances of selected jurors actively seeking in the course of the trial material on the internet about the circumstances of the murders and about the appellant may require to be managed by the court. That, if appropriate, can be done at the outset of the trial or immediately before the jurors disperse at the end of the first day or at any other suitable time, by a suitably framed instruction by the trial judge. While the possibility remains that a juror or jurors might disobey that instruction, the whole jury system depends on there being trust between judge and jury, including an understanding that jurors will not deliberately disobey the instructions on law or procedure which they are given by the trial judge.
[17] It is possible that a person or persons cited for jury service may some time prior to the commencement of the trial have used the internet and, accidentally or deliberately, have come upon information about the police investigation or about the appellant. Such a person may find himself or herself empanelled on the jury. It is customary (in the light of Pullar v H.M. Advocate) for judges at the outset of the trial, before evidence is led, to tell the jurors that if any of them knows the accused or the victim on any charge or if there is any other good reason why he or she should not serve on the jury, that juror should so advise the clerk during the short adjournment which commonly precedes the leading of evidence. In appropriate cases, and this may be such, a reference to knowledge acquired by use of the internet might usefully be added to that instruction. This is no more than a development of existing practice in the context of technological advances.
[18] We regard it as inappropriate to be any more prescriptive than we have been in the observations made above. Much will depend on the particular circumstances which exist at the commencement of the trial and as it progresses. The particular safeguards which are appropriate to the particular trial in its own time and context are best determined by the trial judge. In the course of the discussion it was suggested that there would be advantage in parties, in advance of the trial diet, making representations to the trial judge as to the terms in which he might instruct the jurors as regards any past or prospective use of the internet. In the circumstances of this case we agree that this would be advantageous - in particular, to enable the trial judge to make informed decisions in the light of such assistance. A further diet appointed under section 72(9) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for that purpose would appear to be an appropriate mechanism. R. v Scaf (where suggested directions are discussed) and the other Australian material might usefully be considered.
[19] We are quite satisfied that, in accordance with the safeguards which are available, it can reasonably be expected that the appellant's trial will not be rendered unfair by prejudicial material coming at a significant time to the knowledge of one or more of the jurors at his trial. Being so satisfied, we must refuse this appeal. We shall then remit the case to the preliminary hearing fixed for 1 May 2007.
[20] We would only add that the discussion before us focused on the guarantee of a "fair trial" rather than of an "impartial tribunal" under Article 6. The authorities referred to have the same focus. It may be that, where prejudicial material potentially affecting the judgment of jurors is in issue, the better focus is on the requirement for an impartial tribunal. However, the difference in focus makes no difference to the general principles or to the result.
265 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265Claudia
I thought you'd be lurking somewhere waiting to pounce.
Hiya ICTOAN
The allegations against Murat emanated from one journalist and the McCanns and their friends. This should have been reason enough to treat those allegations with extreme caution and simply report that fact and nothing else. British journalism is a disgrace and they have proved they cannot self-regulate. Regulation of the Press should now be put on a statutory footing with draconian criminal penalties for papers who wilfully misreport biased and abusive copy about a person, destroying their life, merely to manipulate public opinion - as they so clearly did in this case to make Murat look guilty and the McCanns innocent. It is nothing short of wicked.
Viv x
Hiya ICTOAN
Perhaps we should also remember who has been providing the papers with all this biased copy which his girl gang were singing loud and clear on the Daily Express as they repeatedly called Murat a paedophile and his girlfriend a woman who simply handed Maddie over for such terrible abuse - Clarence Mitchell and Gerry McCann - the epitome of evil!
Viv x
Hi Docmac and Claudia,
Regarding the state being able to store and monitor private conversations, although I showed a link to a story which mentioned the DNA database, that's not actually the main thrust of the particular threat which currently concerns me, which is about access to every citizens' private conversations and emails. (The state doesn't do this already, Doc, phonecalls are not recorded and stored as a matter of course).
I don't think I have anything to 'fear', as such, but somebody listening into my private conversations about my love life, or my financial situation or where my son is going to be at a particular time fills me with complete horror. If I was sitting in a cafe talking to a friend about the intimate details of my life I would lower my voice. I don't see why every word I utter on the phone or write in an email should not be as private.
I think it's probably different here in the UK, where we are already the most surveyed people on the planet. Only this week there have been moves to stop local councils from continuting with the practice of selling their constituents' details to firms for financial gain.
Freedom of speech also means freedom to privacy of speech, as far as I'm concerned.
Here in the UK, the laws of defamation are written so that if I sit in my car and make a defamatory comment about someone just to my husband, and somebody else lipreads this, libel action can be taken against me! What would be the case in the event of many others having official access to my private thoughts?
As I said, monitoring the conversations and associations of suspected terrorists does not stop innocent victims such as Jean Charles de Menezes from being shot in the head on a London tube as he was going to work.
Say I was somebody famous. What if someone unscrupulous sold my private conversations to the media? It happened with Princess Diana, it happened with Prince Charles. It would be no less embarrassing for me. Or for you.
If there is to be no privacy of this sort in a country, with the state being able to gain access to your private communications, which have been PERMANENTLY stored, the notion of Liberal Democracy could not be maintained.
This is a very worrying aspiration of the government, and even though the Hubby and I are emigrating in a couple of years (hurrah!) I shall fight against it as much as I can, my trusty liberally democratic penguin at my side.
:)
Hi Viv,
I would trust RM a bit more if he admitted he knew whoever it was he knew out of the Tapas group (I'm assuming he hasn't, here). It's plain to me that the Exeter connection, along with Gerry's anger at questions suggesting he already knew Murat, denote a previous relationship.
I tend to think RM wanted to be of service to them because of, say, a property deal, and unwittingly got roped into whatever happened that night. It then occurred to Gerry - who seems not to possess many, if any, morals - to point the finger at him and away from himself.
Why RM hasn't divulged this is another interesting question...just what/who is he protecting?
Hi LGC
I did not say the state does it, I said the databases exist.
BTW, check this one. I don't know if you need more than this. It is fantastically easy to use even to those who have never used the brand. Even better, it's the one I use at the moment :-))))
See this concise review too.
Viv
Didn't Kate say in a newspaper interview of Mr Murat that there were questions that should be answered.
Doc
The problem of this new technology is not what might happen under a government that is seen as democratic but what a less democratic successor might do with it. I'm sure Himmler or Beria would have embraced it if it had been available to them.
Ta, Doc! Went into a shop and stroked the iPhone for a while the other day, but have (reluctantly) decided against it. :(
The SE looks very interesting, but currently have a new love to replace the iPhone - the Nokia N95.
http://www.nokia.co.uk/A4275003
Even my son was pretty impressed, so I think it must be quite good!
Have another couple of weeks to make up my mind though...
LGC
Like the N95, but if you are in that kind of market check out this comparison before you make your choice. That 980 is sexy!! More here. I'm still going to hang on for the one I mentioned to you on 3a, but the 980 is sweet!
ICTOAN, for sure. Luckily I don't live there, so these problems are not something I have to grapple with really :-)
Little Grey Cell
Jean Charles de Menezes was not innocent!
He was an illegal immigrant who was working in England illegally.
He should not have been here.
Had he left the country when he should, he could not have been shot!
Was he paying tax, or National Insurance?
Or was he sending his ill gotten gains back to his relatives in Brazil?
The amount of money the British taxpayer has had to pay for investigations into his death is mad.
Had he left the county when he should, none of this could have happened.
End of rant. This is just something I feel very strongly about.
Doc,
Ta. Very interesting indeed, but have to say I'm enticed by the big screen of the N95 and anyway, the tappets in the big end are in collusion with the diodes on the intravenous card selection portal. (Translation: I like the look of it).
:)
JJ,
Woa!
Menezes may have been guilty of being in the UK illegally, but personally I don't think this mitigates him being shot in the head and killed.
Or have we turned into a police state without me noticing??
LGC
As the comment was addressed to you I resisted the temptation to reply about De Menezes.
I also don't think that the way to deal with illegal immigrants is to shoot them.
ICTOAN,
Indeed, perhaps hanging, drawing and quartering is better...(that's a joke, JJ).
:)
I agree we shouldn't shoot illegal immigrants.
But my point is, that he is not innocent. And if he had gone home when he should the situation could never have arisen.
If he was described as an illegal immigrant who was shot by mistake, I would go along with it.
I cannot accept that an innocent man was shot.
LGC
No that's reserved for those who don't pay tax or NI.
JJ,
I think the point is that he was innocent of the offence they shot him on suspicion of.
At the risk of sounding like a preachy Christian (FYI I'm Jewish, non-religious), We are All Sinners.
Have you never driven over the speed limit? Have you never accepted money and avoided paying the correct amount of tax on it? Think this makes you fair game for the rozzers with their heavy duty weapons?
I'm not sure what your point is. So Menezes overstayed his welcome and earned some money illegally (some of which he presumably spent in British shops and thus contributed to the economy. If all the 'illegal' economy disappeared overnight, the country would come to a standstill).
If someone else had died instead of him would you be saying they deserved it because they were half an hour late for work?
ICTOAN,
Or for those who say naughty words in their government-monitored emails...
JJ,
the fact that Jean Charles de Menezes being an illegal immigrant is an excuse for him being shot leaves me speechless. There are thousands of illegal immigrants in Portugal. Many thousands. Most of them Africans and also from Ukraine and near countries. Being an illegal immigrant in Portugal is not seen as a crime. Most of them end up becoming legal immigrants. The ones who unfortunately don't manage to do it and are caught, do not go to prison or pay in any way. They are just returned to their countries of origin. Most of these people are desperate parents seeking for a job to feed their children and help their families who, many times, haven't got enough to eat in their origin countries.
P.S: most people have no idea about the importance of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the european economy.
LGC
I think the e-mailers will have a lighter penalty and only have their hands chopped off.
Claudia,
Well said.
I have never understood people wanting others to starve because they don't happen to have the right official papers.
We are all (mostly) human beings! What does it say about us when life is cheaper than a piece of paper with the words Legal Immigrant written on it???
ICTOAN,
Maybe we can aim for another piece of Gerry's anatomy regarding those 14 secret texts?
Littlegreycell
Maybe I'm just being pedantic.
I just object to someone being described as 'innocent' when they're not.
He didn't deserve to die like that but he did contribute to the situation.
The more people describe him as 'innocent' the more annoyed I get.
I wish the press would just describe him as an illegal immigrant who was shot by mistake.
But the press would never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I'm not having a pop at you. It's
just the way this case has been portrayed makes me very angry.
Please don't take it personally.
LGC
Is that what he used to press the keys ?
JJ,
I'm not taking it personally, I've no idea who you are.
However, where does it stop? Should I be described as a Jewish, second-generation Brit every time something happens to me?
Would this be at all relevant in the event the police were to shoot me dead on a London tube train?
ICTOAN,
Close. He does talk out of his backside...
LGC
I think we had better leave it there or the Moderator will be giving the 2 of us yellow cards.
I'm off for a bit now. May be back later if I can avoid the bizzies...
ICTOAN,
I, too, possess the Power of The Bins!!!!
Yehahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
JJ, personally I regard Mr Jean Charles de Menezes as an innocent illegal immigrant who was murdered by mistake with seven shots in the head. And no money in the world spent investigating what happened will ever, ever compensate the pain his family suffer everyday. Nothing personal, of course. I just come from a country where many, many thousands of people during the 50's and 60's mostly entered other countries illegally to find a better life. And no, as far as I'm aware that didn't happen with anyone in my family. And now it's time we in Portugal receive other immigrants under the exact same circumstances. And I am very proud that they all (legal and illegal) choose my country to start all over again.
Littlegreycell
If the press said that a man had been shot by mistake, that would be ok.
It's the way they keep on about him being 'innocent'.
Maybe I'm not expressing myself very well. I do not think that he, or anyone else should be shot, for any reason.
He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time (and that bit was his own fault).
It just as easily have happened to any of us and that would not be right either.
I probably am being pedantic. Sorry
Well said Claudia.
Perhaps we should all now adjourn to the New Post
Well well well, who would have thought that LGC's mobile dilemma would have found me my next one. I did not even know about this until sniffing around. 8MP camera, music galore and Wi-Fi! This is heaven for me. Thanks LGC! Can't wait for the release :-)))
Doc, you know I had a birthday recently, right? ;-)
Oh no, I see we're on the CdM debate :-(( I'm out.
BBFN.
Claudia that C905 is going to be DA BOMB!!
BBL.
Doc, you seemed to have missed my point! :-)
JJ
I don’t understand what you are trying to say? An unarmed man was shot dead by the police?
Just because he was here illegally does not make him guilty? To say he is not innocent is crazy he overstayed his visa many people do (many English people do when visiting the states, Australia etc).
Are you saying that if I was to overstay my visa in Oz and was shot in the head by the police it would be ok because I was not innocent of being an illegal immigrant?
This could have happened to anyone of us if we had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and although the hysteria from 7/7 was still fresh I hope the police learn from this as I don’t want to live in a country where innocent people are shot in the head.
The world is a big place and each Human deserves the right to a good life and if someone comes here to work for it I cant see a problem they certainly do not deserve to die.
Hope
As I said in my previous post, I don't think anyone should be shot for any reason.
What I object to is the 'innocent' bit that the press keep on about.
Are they saying that if he wasn't 'innocent' it would be ok to shoot him?
Yes, Claudia
Sorry, I must have. I am a little preoccupied at the moment. I see it now, have you received a belated birthday 'surprise'? ;-)
Hopefully not a pregnancy :-)))))
I'm a bit busy right now, see you later.
JJ,
What does the term 'innocent' in the context of JCdM mean to you?
He wasn't 'guilty' of money laundering, or of neglecting a small child, or of shooting anyone at all in the head.
His only 'crime' was to overstay his legal welcome in the UK, to work without a work permit and to be mistaken for a terrorist suspect when he left his flat.
He was entirely INNOCENT of provoking a fatal attack on his life by badly-informed policemen with heavy duty weaponry.
I don't think you understand my point in my last post: everyone is 'guilty' of something! This does not make the term 'innocent', used when describing them if the police manage to unlawfully kill them, a mis-description!
Docmac,
(Are you behind the sofa??)
Yes, nice phone, shame it's not a Nokia N95 or an iPhone! :)
Doc, a belated birthday surprise would be, for example, one of those nice mobiles! lololol
P.S: na, I'm on the pill. :-)
Littlegreycell
In this instance, I would class innocent, as having a legal right to be where he was.
He didn't have the legal right to be there.
That does not mean that anyone has the right to shoot him. They didn't.
I don't seem to be putting my meaning across very well.
Maybe it would be best if we just agree to differ on this one.
Thanks to everyone for their views.
JJ
I do understand the point that you are making and the fact that I could never agree doesn't alter that we are members of this blog for a common purpose.
We therefore debate as friends which means as friends we can disagree without hurting that friendship.
JJ,
Glad to agree to differ, but I think you've just defeated your own argument:
If nobody had the right to shoot him, he was an innocent victim of an illegal shooting!!!
Legality is a totally man-made concept. Surely right to life is a bit more serious than that?
icantthinkofaname
Thanks. What a nice thing to say.
JJ
What you seem to mean is Menezes was guilty of being an illegal immigrant and you get really angry about him being described as "innocent" for that reason.
I think you are on the wrong blog! Mum21 would no doubt see exactly where you are coming from!
The people on this blog are humanitarians who respect the right to life, no matter where they come from..
Viv x
LGC
If you can get a discount on your phone consider spending the excess on this. These folk are just down the road from me, I pass them on the way to work every day. Go on, you know you want to! :-)
Viv
I replied honestly to a posting on this blog.
I'm sorry you don't agree with my comments. They were not rude and I am glad other people replied to me.
I was very interested to read other views.
I felt the discussion had run it's course and we agreed to differ.
I thought that seemed a sensible and friendly thing to do.
If you don't want me to post my comments here, that is of course, your privilege. It's your site.
Docmac
I am watching a very interesting documentary on TV about Rosemary Nalden and the Buskaid Project in Soweto.
Oh dear.
I really hate disagreements but here goes....
I think where JJ is wrong is in the wish to emphasise that the man was not innocent. LGC is correct in saying that he was innocent of what he was shot for and it makes no difference if he were black, white, disabled, Jewish or Muslim, legal or illegal etc.
I think where JJ is right (and I think she may have been trying to say) is that if he were here legally, he may not have been here to have been mistaken in the first place as he may have been back home. Bit of a tenuous point and it's all down to cause and effect. Schroedinger, that kind of thing!
Please be nice folks. I'm too delicate for rows :) xx
ICTOAN
I have never heard of the Buskaid project. How interesting, I shall have to look it up.
In my defence I must say that Soweto is not that far off twice the straight-line distance between Land's End and John O'Groats away from where I am!
And seeing as you mentioned Soweto, HAPPY BIRTHDAY MADIBA!!! May you see another 10 at least!
On the light side - viv, watch this you tube video entitled "My cat says no smoking"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Rip2-ohZxEQ
cute! xx
Doc mac
Rosemary Halden is a symphonic musician who heard an orchestra from Soweto on the radio and having done some research realised the need for instruments to be provided.
Having organised some money raising events in London she visited Soweto and decided to set up a music school to aid the local children through music.
Take it from there.
Is the Daily Mail offline there too?
Thanks ICTOAN, it rings a bell now. In fact I think I did actually seen something on TV about it. The name did not sound familiar when I read it earlier. Will have a look.
Doc Mac
The DM is on line here. I've just accessed it.
Buskaid Project.
Yep, it's online here too now.
Please excuse me, there are a couple of things I have been asked to read there.
Hi all,
Just a quick hello and goodbye from me.
Having read the back posts. A film I can recommend is Children of Men. The depiction of cruelty to mankind is awful. Is this our future? With regard to JCdM. Being an illegal immigrant has nothing to do with the injustice of him being killed, the fact that he was judged by the colour of his skin is what I have issues with. We live in a multi cultural society we should all be valued for what we are and how we behave not how we look or what we believe in.
BBFN
BBFN
Oh fantastic, fantastic, fantastic! I had lost the link to this video. Read this page from the DM, but then take a look at the video at the bottom of the article. If you have not seen 'The Battle of Kruger" before you will be astounded! You'll also get to hear some Afrikaans :-))
Lovely, made me cry all over again. Oh dear! Africa, I'm loving it.
Hello everyone!
Just to set your minds at rest I have posted for a long time on a few sites, Huff's crimeblog in the early days, never on the DX, MF yes and more recently on 3As. All under different user names - I will email Viv with my 3A's name. I chose dobby as it's my nickname being the height of an elf according to friends and family!
I am "just a mum" who has been appalled since May 2007 that a couple could leave children alone in a foreign apartment, lose one, start a limited company and consider themselves above investigation ... you know the rest. I have felt at times as if I was living in a parallel universe.
All I have ever wanted is for the "parents" to tell the truth as I had a feeling the moment that the news broke that something was very very wrong.
All I want is for Madeleine to be shown some respect and peace.
Post a Comment