Re~Stirred Forum

To reprint a line I quoted by that was edited out by moderators during the trial, here's what a BBC article reported:
"Mr King, of no fixed address... was driving an Audi A3"

I don't know much about the trial at all, but as Dom says it seems unlikely the people on trial were 'regular guys'.

On a more practical note, I struggle to see how - in the context of disturbances which would make any sensible driver drive very carefully - a car could collide 'accidentally' with three individuals with sufficient force to cause fatal injuries. The probability of a pedestrian dying after being hit by a car is related to the speed of the vehicle impact, being about 10% at 40mph, but dramatically increasing at speeds over 40mph [see this curve]. I've no idea what the evidence in the case was, but I would have assumed that to cause so much damage, the cars would need to have been driven at significant speeds.

And?


That's pretty obvious from your comments, I wouldn't take much notice of our resident tax exile, they don't have much civil disorder on the streets of Valletta.

As I said previously if a group of up to 80 individuals, some armed with swords and sticks, are lobbing bricks at you I'm not sure the speed limit would be at the front of your mind.

This situation is a travesty. As black man, I am utterly disgusted with lack of awareness of the black community to themselves being seen more and more as a periah in society. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

Come off it admin, juries have been known to get things wrong you know! I haven't been following this case, so have no opinion on it.

And you have got to wonder there is not a corresponding statement on the Tomlinson thread?

I personally don't think that this is a matter of whether the jury were right or wrong. If they were not guilty of murder, which it seems to be the case, then they were not guilty of murder.

But at least someone must be guilty of manslaughter! Why wasn't there this as a lesser charge? Especially if the Judge and prosecutor knew that these technicalities were hampering a 'clean' trial.

Justice has not been done and that is a fact and I would call on the black community to demand justice for the this poor mans family. Whoever was driving the first car should, if justice is to be seen to be done, be recharged with manslaughter.

I would say to the Asian community, that this all started when an innocent black man was gunned down by the police and now justice might not have beeen done because another officer failed to follow correct procedure.

Even though there were white men involved, and from what I was told was the driver of the 1st car (but don't quote me on that), this looks really bad for the other 99% of hard working, decent black folk.

Why isn't it acceptable? Having an opinion on something, however wacky, is entirely acceptable as long as it isn't defamatory.

Your argument that this must be a good decision because it was taken quickly seems a little bit odd. I have more respect for people that have obviously thought stuff through.

I can only assume that you suggest that we also defer to the many many miscarriages of justice that we're all too familiar with.

I have no opinion on this case, as I know nothing about it.

This will not have helped the police's case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/birmingham-riot-deaths-police-officer?INTCMP=SRCH

nor, I suspect, impressed the jury.

that link, Andy, is surely in the wrong thread!

Sorry! Corrected. This is the second time recently that my computer has pasted a previous copy request. Odd.

Interestingly some in the local community have called for Chris Sims, the WMP Chief Constable to resign and the BBC News story starts with:

The community leader Raj Rattu, from a Handsworth residents' group:

Another voice is Derrick Campbell, from Race Equality Sandwell, was more measured and regarding the call for Sims to resign:

On the trial he stated:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-18920715

Curiously it appears that both Campbell and Rattu are members of a consultative group for WMP and in the official press release after a meeting yesterday their criticisms don't appear:http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/press-release.asp?id=3712

To date calm has remained on the streets of B'ham after the trail verdict, although WMP appear to have asked for 'mutual aid' the term for help from other forces. Even vans from Grampian Police have been spotted, although it is possible this is help for the Olympics after the G4S debacle.

There are a number of comments on this thread about what happened in August 2012, whether WMP lost control; whether the evidence merited a charge of murder / manslaughter and whether the allegation of perjury affected the trial.

It was quite obvious in August 2012 that in Lozells the police were absent and part of the community mobilised in response to "defend" their community. There had been a series of crimes locally before the death in London, which had led to tension between young men from different groups and an attack on the petrol station on Dudley Road the night before - dispersed by the "defenders".

Shortly after the trial started this aspect of the incident was covered in a BBC News story:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-17830697

I can understand that after the deaths WMP and other public bodies needed to be seen to take effective action against those who had been arrested hence the charges of murder. What is puzzling is that CPS did not seek alternative charges being laid when the trial started, in particular Death by Reckless Driving.

Three cars, with at least eight males aboard, encounter a "defenders" roadblock. Was their only option to go ahead? All three cars go ahead, yes maybe in a panic, although I have m' doubts.

The allegation of perjury against DCI Tagg is serious. It was clear from the very limited press coverage of the trial that considerable time was taken up by legal argument - when the jury would not be present and so could not be prejudiced by the issues raised. Offering immunity from prosecution for crimes to prosecution witnesses falls under the complex and little used provision known as SOCPA (actually the abbreviation for an Act of Parliament). Such offers must be agreed by CPS at every stage, for the official advice:http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/socpa_agreements_-_practical_note_for_defence_advocates/

I take it you mean causing death by dangerous driving, there is no such offence as death by reckless driving.

Two issues there, the CPS seemed determined to get convictions against all eight, death by dangerous driving charges could only have been brought against one or more of the drivers.

Secondly, unlike murder with a charge of death by dangerous driving or for that matter manslaughter (of which they were all also cleared) a defence of duress would be available. Having up to 80 men with swords, sticks and throwing bricks at your car would certainly put you in fear for your life or serious injury.

I would suggest you go to the scene, or look on Street View, and consider if anyone but a stunt driver could rapidly turn there car around in the face of a baying mob and head in the opposite as you are suggesting.


BIB, on a general point, why was there so little coverage in the local media during the twelve week trial? Reporting restrictions? Press and the police agreeing to play it low key in the interests of community relations?

Alleged perjury by the cop, the burning of the car...all of these revelations make the case appear murkier and murkier. Anyone know where any of this now goes?

An interesting point is made about the street layout above. That part of the city I know very well, and making a u turn in an area like that, with its narrow windy streets,especially on a night like that - but infact any day of the year - is not an easy thing to do.

I'm still not shocked by the verdict, as the very nature of the case seems complicated, and involves proof of intent. But it does appear that there is more to this than a simple 'not guilty' verdict, though perhaps we should remember that the defendants have been declared not guilty, and that is exactly what they may well be, even when all the post verdict investigations and benefit of hindsight/ wasn't there comments ( at the scene or at court/ behind the scenes of court) have been made.

Messy, unfortunately, and that will linger in the area - which is something it doesn't need.

Correct, my mistake not to check the legislation.



I didn't want to get too immersed in legal options, but conspiracy appears to have been an option, especially as three cars were involved.



Yes, but in the circumstances it was far better that a jury decided.





I have been to the location three times; the petrol station is the only open space in the vicinity to have a roadblock. My recollection was that the traffic flow was all one-way at the time.





I asked a journalist that too. Their response was that assigning a reporter for such a long trial, which now only had an impact in the city would not get national interest. Yes reporting restrictions wouldn't help, nor the lengthy legal arguments. It is easy to suspect the local press and agencies agreed to stay-away, although I have m' doubts over an agreement with the police or others, like BCC.

The families of the three dead men held a press conference yesterday and Tariq Jahan acted as spokesman:

Speaking at a press conference, he said the families were:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19001053

Whilst the BBC reports on what WMP are doing, there is nothing about CPS trying to explain itself to the local public.

It appears that the families of the deceased have asked for legal advice on what options there are now: public inquiry, judicial review and a referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

There are a number of issues around the conduct of the trial itself - notably that the judge was sitting on his first murder case and his background was in commercial law. There are the judge's comments on the SIO committing Perjury, subject of an IPCC supervised investigation and an internal WMP review.

Checking the CCRC website indicates that is not an option, simply as no-one was convicted:

Link:http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/criminal-cases-review-commission

A public inquiry similar to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (often called the Macpherson Inquiry) is an option, but there are big differences between the cases.

There maybe some anger and a lot of concern locally about the deaths and the trial. What are the views here?