R v Martyn Blake

[Fredxx]

As per:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter

Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

It was a brilliant shot to hit him at all in the circumstances. It is
ridiculous to suggest shooting someone in the chest to wound them, anyway. It
is likely to kill.


The only real life example of shooting to wound I know of is the Israeli army
shooting unarmed Gaza men, women and children protesting on the other side of
a strong fence, deliberately to disable them and cost expensive medical
treatment; but then they had plenty of time to aim and fire as they were in no
danger. In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media
reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming
to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:05:52 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media
reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming
to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.
Mark

That makes a great deal of sense, and is almost the opposite of what was
reported by the previous poster. It is clearly stopping the person that is
important, and there is no reason for particularly wanting to kill him, that
is just a common side effect of stopping people with bullets.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:05:52 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media
reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming
to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.

That makes a great deal of sense, and is almost the opposite of what was
reported by the previous poster. It is clearly stopping the person that is
important, and there is no reason for particularly wanting to kill him, that
is just a common side effect of stopping people with bullets.

This report from the Evenin Stannit is one which supports that
interpretation:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/chris-kaba-police-shooting-murder-trial-martyn-blake-old-bailey-streatham-b1187695.html
or https://tinyurl.com/2rsu5je5

He told the court he had aimed his gun above the steering wheel to give
the best chance of hitting the central body mass of the driver, as
officers are trained.

Asked by Mr Gibbs if he had intended to kill Mr Kaba, he replied: "No."

He acknowledged that taking a shot into the central body mass at that
range could be fatal.

In other words, he was aiming for the best chance to hit, rather than
specifically to kill, but was aware that death was a possible outcome.

Mark

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:05:52 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media
reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming
to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.

That makes a great deal of sense, and is almost the opposite of what was
reported by the previous poster. It is clearly stopping the person that is
important, and there is no reason for particularly wanting to kill him, that
is just a common side effect of stopping people with bullets.

This report from the Evenin Stannit is one which supports that
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/chris-kaba-police-shooting-murder-
trial-martyn-blake-old-bailey-streatham-b1187695.html
or https://tinyurl.com/2rsu5je5
He told the court he had aimed his gun above the steering wheel to give
the best chance of hitting the central body mass of the driver, as
officers are trained.
Asked by Mr Gibbs if he had intended to kill Mr Kaba, he replied: "No."
He acknowledged that taking a shot into the central body mass at that
range could be fatal.
In other words, he was aiming for the best chance to hit, rather than
specifically to kill, but was aware that death was a possible outcome.

I understand that the official police policy is usually to 'aim to stop'
by aiming at the greatest target area (usually the main body mass).

[Pamela]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-polic
e-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to
ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

It was a brilliant shot to hit him at all in the circumstances. It is
ridiculous to suggest shooting someone in the chest to wound them,
anyway. It is likely to kill.
The only real life example of shooting to wound I know of is the
Israeli army shooting unarmed Gaza men, women and children protesting
on the other side of a strong fence, deliberately to disable them and
cost expensive medical treatment; but then they had plenty of time to
aim and fire as they were in no danger. In the police situation the
only aim would be for the centre of mass as seen through the
windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting to wound
would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

Is it known exactly where on the head the bullet struck Chris Kaba, or
is that too grisly a detail to release?

[JNugent]

Post by Pamela

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-polic
e-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to
ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

It was a brilliant shot to hit him at all in the circumstances. It is
ridiculous to suggest shooting someone in the chest to wound them,
anyway. It is likely to kill.
The only real life example of shooting to wound I know of is the
Israeli army shooting unarmed Gaza men, women and children protesting
on the other side of a strong fence, deliberately to disable them and
cost expensive medical treatment; but then they had plenty of time to
aim and fire as they were in no danger. In the police situation the
only aim would be for the centre of mass as seen through the
windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting to wound
would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.

Is it known exactly where on the head the bullet struck Chris Kaba, or
is that too grisly a detail to release?

I'm sure I read (probably on the Guardian website) that he was struck in
the forehead (possibly because he was, also as reported, keeping as low
as possible within the vehicle).

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly
not the case here.

Post by Fredxx
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

Assuming the evidence as reported by the media is correct, it would have no
more chance of succeeding as manslaughter. The jury clearly accepted the
evidence of Blake and his colleagues that there was a genuine perception of
a severe threat to the lives of police officers present. In which case, it
was justified, and hence could not be an unlawful act.

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He hit a moving target under pressure. The fact that he didn't hit the
target in precisely the spot he might have preferred to doesn't make him a
bad shot. This isn't like Olympic target shooting where everything takes
place under carefully controlled conditions and the shooter takes the shot
in their own time. As an armed police officer, the target is the person you
are shooting at. If you hit that person anywhere then it's a hit.

Mark

[GB]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly
not the case here.

Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by GB

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly
not the case here.

Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?

Apparently not. It was a journalist's or a reader's misinterpretation of what
the defendant said. He apparently said his intention was not to kill but to
stop the victim. That does *not* imply an intention to wound. It implies that
his priority was to stop the victim driving, but he was fully aware of the
likely fatality, although that was not his objective.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by GB

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly
not the case here.

Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?

No, he didn't. Without a full transcript it's impossible to know exactly
what was said, but piecing it together from a number of different reports
suggests that in answer to the question "Did you intend to kill Mr Kaba?",
PC Blake replied "No, I intended to hit him", or words to that effect. That
is, while Blake was aware that death was a likely consequence of a
successful shot, he would still have considered it a successful shot
nonetheless even if Kaba had survived.

Mark

[GB]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by GB

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly
not the case here.

Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?

No, he didn't. Without a full transcript it's impossible to know exactly
what was said, but piecing it together from a number of different reports
suggests that in answer to the question "Did you intend to kill Mr Kaba?",
PC Blake replied "No, I intended to hit him", or words to that effect. That
is, while Blake was aware that death was a likely consequence of a
successful shot, he would still have considered it a successful shot
nonetheless even if Kaba had survived.

These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that Mr
Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why. The
trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.

Police marksmen train for many, many hours, so that their training takes
over in these crisis situations, precisely because there isn't time to
stop and think.

Officers are trained normally to aim for the torso, because that's the
biggest target, and a hit there is completely disabling.

Post by Mark Goodge
Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by GB

[quoted text muted]

These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that Mr
Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why. The
trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.

The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an
intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead of
night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how load
I am allowed to shout ?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that Mr
Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why. The
trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.

The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an
intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead of
night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how load
I am allowed to shout ?

Why are you under the impression that police, the CPS, and the courts
don't already take that into account?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that
Mr Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why.
The trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.

The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an
intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead
of night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how
load I am allowed to shout ?

Why are you under the impression that police, the CPS, and the courts
don't already take that into account?

Because it's not the law, which makes "proportionate" an objective, not
subjective test.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by GB
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that
Mr Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why.
The trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.

The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an
intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead
of night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how
load I am allowed to shout ?

Why are you under the impression that police, the CPS, and the courts
don't already take that into account?

Because it's not the law, which makes "proportionate" an objective, not
subjective test.

It is the law. The question as to "what threat did the householder think
they were facing?" is subjective not objective, and the question of "is
how they reacted reasonable?" considers the response of a reasonable
person facing the same threat.

What part of any of that has led you to mistakenly think that the system
will not take into account circumstances such as you being half-asleep
in the middle of a pitch-dark night and using whatever you had
immediately available to hand to repel the threat from an unknown
intruder?

See this for further information:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/householders-2013.pdf

[Jeff]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He hit a moving target under pressure. The fact that he didn't hit the
target in precisely the spot he might have preferred to doesn't make him a
bad shot. This isn't like Olympic target shooting where everything takes
place under carefully controlled conditions and the shooter takes the shot
in their own time. As an armed police officer, the target is the person you
are shooting at. If you hit that person anywhere then it's a hit.

Also bear in mind that the bullet passed through a sloping windscreen
that may well have deflected the bullet.

Jeff

[Norman Wells]

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.

He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.

I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He said he didn't intend to kill. But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.

The jury clearly agreed.

Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.

I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.

You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason
of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly
self-defence.

Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.

I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter
when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed
provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He said he didn't intend to kill.

He may have said that but that in itself was not a defence to murder. He did
intend to use potentially lethal force that he knew was likely to cause severe
harm or death, so if it had not been self-defence (or manslaughter for a a
different, not raised, reason) then it would still have potentially been
murder even if he didn't intend to kill.

Post by Norman Wells
But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.

[Fredxx]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.

You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason
of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly
self-defence.
Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.

The judge didn't allow the prosecution to get their way, for a charge of
manslaughter to be available to the jury.

And they only asked the judge after Blake gave his testimony.

I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the
prosecution as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming
to light as they would in a criminal court.

However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.

There are two cases I think should have gone to court in the same way,
namely the deaths of Harry Stanley and Mark Duggan. At least in Blake's
actions there is body-cam footage that I feel exonerates him. Shamefully
any witnesses to Mark Duggan's extra judicial murder were told, or made
to look elsewhere.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.

I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter
when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed
provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.

The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the
result will be manslaughter rather than murder.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He said he didn't intend to kill.

He may have said that but that in itself was not a defence to murder. He did
intend to use potentially lethal force that he knew was likely to cause severe
harm or death, so if it had not been self-defence (or manslaughter for a a
different, not raised, reason) then it would still have potentially been
murder even if he didn't intend to kill.

Post by Norman Wells
But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Fredxx
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the prosecution
as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming to light as
they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.

It may be a question of justice being seen to be served as there is
clearly an element of the community who are unhappy about this?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Fredxx
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the prosecution
as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming to light as
they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.

It may be a question of justice being seen to be served as there is
clearly an element of the community who are unhappy about this?

I agree. It is still possible that his actions could have been unjustified on
the balance of probability even if this cannot be proved to a criminal
standard, or that his actions could have been non-criminal but a breach of
police rules. I suspect that the disciplinary hearing will exonerate him, but
the fact he was not found guilty does not in itself make him blameless.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.

You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason
of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly
self-defence.
Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.

The judge didn't allow the prosecution to get their way, for a charge of
manslaughter to be available to the jury.
And they only asked the judge after Blake gave his testimony.
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the
prosecution as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming
to light as they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.
There are two cases I think should have gone to court in the same way,
namely the deaths of Harry Stanley and Mark Duggan. At least in Blake's
actions there is body-cam footage that I feel exonerates him. Shamefully
any witnesses to Mark Duggan's extra judicial murder were told, or made
to look elsewhere.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.

I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter
when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed
provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.

The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the
result will be manslaughter rather than murder.

In principle, yes. But if a) you know what guns do and b) you shoot *at*
someone then intent (to cause serious, life-threatening injury) is amply
proved for murder, unless (as in this case) you have a valid excuse for
intending serious injury. I really do not see that any lesser intent is
remotely possible.

snip

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx
The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the
result will be manslaughter rather than murder.

In principle, yes. But if a) you know what guns do and b) you shoot *at*
someone then intent (to cause serious, life-threatening injury) is amply
proved for murder, unless (as in this case) you have a valid excuse for
intending serious injury. I really do not see that any lesser intent is
remotely possible.

Indeed. I think a lot of people are being misled by the fact that Blake,
when giving evidence, said that he didn't intend to kill Kaba, and have
assumed that the jury accepted this as a defence and thus acquitted him on
the basis of lack of intent. But that's incorrect in both law and fact.
Blake may not have intended to kill Kaba, but he did intend to cause him
serious injury, and stated as much in his evidence. And death as a
consequence of GBH is murder, even if there was no specific intent to kill -
if you beat someone up and they die, you can't get away with it on the
technicality that you only intended to thrash them to within an inch of
their life.

As the CPS puts it, murder is committed a person:

* of sound mind and discretion (sane)
* unlawfully kills (not self-defence or other justified killing)
* any reasonable creature (a human being)
* in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs)
* under the King's Peace (not in wartime)
* with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm

There are also three partial defences to murder when all of the above
elements are proved:

* diminished responsibility
* loss of control
* killing as part of a suicide pact

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

Now, it's beyound doubt that Kaba was a human being who was alive at the
time he was shot, and the shooting did not take place as an act of war. It
was also not a suicide pact. Blake also did not assert diminished
responsibility, loss of control or insanity - on the contrary, his evidence
emphasised how closely he adhered to his training, and this was support by
other officers who gave evidence. He also admitted intent to cause grievous
bodily harm. So his one and only defence was that his actions were
justified. And the jury accepted that they were, and hence acquitted him.

Having accepted that his actions were justified, the jury could not possibly
have returned a guilty verdict of manslaughter even if that option had been
presented to them. Given the evidence presented in court - rational,
controlled intent to inflict GBH on another human - there are only two
possible outcomes: conviction for murder or complete acquittal. And the
verdict was acquittal.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Fredxx
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the
prosecution as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming
to light as they would in a criminal court.

Yes, this is one of the things that seems to have been missed or ignored by
a lot of commenters who make a lot of the fact that Kaba was unarmed at the
time he was shot. Yes, he didn't have a gun or knife in the car. But a car
itself is perfectly capable of being used as a lethal weapon, and Kaba gave
every impression of attempting to utilise it for that very purpose when he
tried to ram his way out of the roadblock.

Post by Fredxx
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.

I think they pretty much have to, because killings by the police are
sufficiently rare that it's always worth looking into why, or whether, it
was necessary, particularly if there's a valid complaint which asserts that
it wasn't necessary.

Post by Fredxx
The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the
result will be manslaughter rather than murder.

The only way intent could come into it is if there was no intent to cause
serious harm. Even if the intent was not to kill, it would be hard to argue
that deliberately shooting someone is not an attempt to inflict GBH. In
which case, it's still murder if the victim dies and the shooting was not
justified.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge

[quoted text muted]

Yes, this is one of the things that seems to have been missed or ignored
by a lot of commenters who make a lot of the fact that Kaba was unarmed
at the time he was shot.

Which may not have been apparent to the officer.

I am quite happy that there are circumstances in which a police officer
can quite legitimately shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away from
them. Which is probably the most extreme example I can think of. However
- as with all cases where death occurs as a result of police action - I'd
like it to be *properly* investigated.

[Peter Walker]

Post by Jethro_uk
I am quite happy that there are circumstances in which a police
officer can quite legitimately shoot an unarmed suspect who is running
away from them. Which is probably the most extreme example I can think
of. However - as with all cases where death occurs as a result of
police action - I'd like it to be *properly* investigated.

Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?

I have my own concerns about non-violent but non-cooperating suspects being
subject to threats of tazering to force their compliance.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Peter Walker

[quoted text muted]

Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?

You have amended my statement.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Peter Walker

[quoted text muted]

Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?

You have amended my statement.

Indeed he has, but it is still a valid question, on the way to yours. I would
answer "No" to the amended statement.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Peter Walker

[quoted text muted]

Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?

I didn't add the qualifier you did. Which is indeed the one which makes
it valid.

It is entirely possible that a person fleeing a policeman (so running
away with their back to them) could pose a serious threat to the public.
If they happen to be running *towards* someone they could either harm, or
attempt to use as a hostage - particularly a child.

[Jeff]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Peter Walker

[quoted text muted]

Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?

I didn't add the qualifier you did. Which is indeed the one which makes
it valid.
It is entirely possible that a person fleeing a policeman (so running
away with their back to them) could pose a serious threat to the public.
If they happen to be running *towards* someone they could either harm, or
attempt to use as a hostage - particularly a child.

or trying to reach the detonator of a bomb.

Jeff

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jeff

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Peter Walker

[quoted text muted]

Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid
to apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a
perceived threat to life to either officers or the public?

I didn't add the qualifier you did. Which is indeed the one which makes
it valid.
It is entirely possible that a person fleeing a policeman (so running
away with their back to them) could pose a serious threat to the
public. If they happen to be running *towards* someone they could
either harm, or attempt to use as a hostage - particularly a child.

or trying to reach the detonator of a bomb.

That also introduces the possibility that a suspect may have some sort of
dead mans device which would trigger a bomb if they were to be
incapacitated.

Which is *another* reason why the de Menezes killing is so "iffy". If he
were *really* suspected to be a master terrorist, then his execution
seems a tad cavalier. How did the super cops know he was a terrorist, but
not one with a dead mans device connected to the rucksack he didn't have ?

I appreciate in this case, there was nothing to suggest such a
possibility.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.

You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason
of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly
self-defence.

SO there's no harm in missing them out. They're irrelevant.

Post by Roger Hayter
Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.

They were not entitled to give a manslaughter verdict because that is
not what he was charged with.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.

I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter
when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed
provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.

A jury's job is to give a verdict solely on the charge that is brought.
Murder or not. Guilty or not guilty.

The jury is not permitted to substitute anything else.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He said he didn't intend to kill.

He may have said that but that in itself was not a defence to murder. He did
intend to use potentially lethal force that he knew was likely to cause severe
harm or death, so if it had not been self-defence (or manslaughter for a a
different, not raised, reason) then it would still have potentially been
murder even if he didn't intend to kill.

The jury decided it wasn't.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Norman Wells
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else in
a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well have
been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly the
jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.

I saw that reported, it seemed to me that it was being put forward as an
excuse or justification for the shooting.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life.  Neither therefore seems to apply.

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure
a failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair.  Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He said he didn't intend to kill.  But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified.  Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.

To whom does that last sentence refer, and what does it mean?

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-
police- officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?

Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence
or of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of
some harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to
shoot others who are endangering life.  Neither therefore seems to apply.

Post by Fredxx
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to
ensure a failed prosecution.

For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should
also have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the
same facts in the same trial are inherently unfair.  Juries may be
reluctant to convict for murder but may well settle for second best
because there is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle
for that regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they
probably don't appreciate anyway.

Post by Fredxx
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

He said he didn't intend to kill.  But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger
from that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified.
Certainly the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any
knowledge of his criminal past.

To whom does that last sentence refer, and what does it mean?

Sorry, it was written in a rush. It should have said the jury acquitted
him, totally fairly, without having any knowledge of the deceased's
criminal past which may have been seen as an undue influence to acquit.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of
a notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone
else in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown
on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified.
Certainly the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any
knowledge of his criminal past.

To whom does that last sentence refer, and what does it mean?

Sorry, it was written in a rush.  It should have said the jury acquitted
him, totally fairly, without having any knowledge of the deceased's
criminal past which may have been seen as an undue influence to acquit.

OK, thanks. That makes a lot more sense.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.

I don't think he said anything of the sort. See other posts. If he had, and
the defence had put that forward, then I suppose the jury might have had a
choice of manslaughter. A rational jury would not have chosen that option
given the ridiculous suggestion that a shot to his chest was chosen in order
*not* to kill the victim. But, of course, that suggestion was never made.

Post by Fredxx
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?

Hitting the driver of a moving car at all with handgun is a first class shot.
I think Blake claimed he aimed at the centre of mass of the driver as seen
through the car window.

[Jethro_uk]

A barrister speaks