Almost Missed One.

Court cases that is although technically this one was a Coroners Inquest. The case in question revolved around a 14 year old girl who died after taking ecstasy at a friends house party. The girls got the drugs through finding in them friend's father's wardrobe. We were all expecting a simple ruling of death by misadventure. However today the Corner sensationally stopped proceedings in order to allow the police to build a prosecution against the father - one of those 1960's hippy academic types - with non-intentional manslaughter which is basically killing someone by accident through an accidental action. It is a notoriously difficult offence to prove. For example I think it was in Finney (1874) that (presumably another) Judge Lush made the distinction between "carelessness" and "inadvertence."

It is also the only possible charge that could be laid against the armed police officer who shot another armed police officer prompting a third armed police officer to shoot dead Mark Duggan sparking off Britain's 2011 riots. The anniversary of these riots are coming up and they coincide with both my mother's birthday and the first anniversary of her civil-partnership ceremony so you would think I would be able to remember the exact date.

Apart from the obvious the drugs and academic elements of the story relate to my time at university in which I did more of the former then latter. The non-intentional manslaughter charge is designed to re-ignite the anger that led to the riots and possibly get the Duggan family involved in the lenghty legal process of trying to get a police officer convicted. There is very little chance of that happening because once you've established the distinction between "carelessness" and "inadvertence" you then have to prove the accused actions constitute a crime against the state/crown. Good luck trying to prove that one in this case.


23:10 on 2/8/12.