My latest piece for iNews, on the Supreme Court decision concerning the victims of John Worboys and their fight for compensation for police failings in the investigation into Worboys’ crimes, is available to read here, should this sort of thing be of interest:
Great piece re HRA Claim, thanks … BUT 3 weeks ago Supreme Court OPENED the gates to Common Law claims by getting rid of Lord Keith’s HILL misconceptions. (Attached – with my highlights)
Did I miss your piece on this?
Medical treatments involve many ‘complex judgements and discretionary decisions’ and yet Doctors are sued even when they make relatively minor errors. Its good to see the Police held to the standards of other professions.
Apologies if this appears multiple times. It reflects the number of attempts I’ve made to add the comment without any visible sign that it’s been accepted. Yet I just tried again only to be faced with the message “Looks like you’ve already said that”. Tried viewing in 3 different browsers and my message is not visible in any so this is my final attempt.
I came to your blog as a result of hearing your “staged” interview on today’s “Law in Action”. Found this item amongst others.
I read your analysis with considerable interest. The passage I’d like to focus on is:
“The courts have long held that it would not be “fair, just and reasonable” to impose that obligation on the police, mainly reasons of public policy. The argument runs that police work involves complex judgments and discretionary decisions, and subjecting each step of the investigative process to the risk of litigation would inhibit the robust operation of police work, divert resources from inquiries and act as a deterrent, not a spur, to law enforcement.
However, by bringing their claim under the Human Rights Act, framing the legal argument as one of a breach of a fundamental human right rather than a common law claim for negligence, the victims sought to circumvent that restriction by arguing that different considerations apply.”
The totality of which suggests the police are now screwed, if you’ll pardon the vernacular, and are being forced to become somewhat more accountable.
That being so, an opportunity beckons.
For the whole of this century to date, I have been developing both the argument and the technology for “watching the watchers”. If that is enough to spark your interest, I’d be grateful if you could take a look at one of my own blog entries.
It begins with my proposed definition of a new term I call “Accountabiity Theatre” (which is, routinely, what the State and other Authorities uses to deflect full inspection of their conduct) and provides a glimpse of radical proposals on how we can eliminate it. And if you’re still interested after you’ve read that, I’d like to submit more of the detail to you for your private scrutiny. I have high level technical experts perusing my technical claims (and hopefully due to pronounce a favourable verdict in the coming weeks or months) but I’d really like feedback on the legal implications of what I propose; the objections we are likely to face and how we might overcome them. And from what I heard your avatar voice on your behalf today, I’m guessing you’re going to be somewhat sympathetic to my proposals.
Comments are closed.