I think two things about this case. Both that the right verdict was reached, and the right process was followed. I would suggest to those that think a community is "traumatised" by this that they consider the trauma the like of Kaba inflict every day, and focus their efforts to rooting out his ilk from their community, ensuring they are behind bars instead.
@@john_michael_white I'm not shedding any tears for Kaba but the counter argument that I have heard is that resisting arrest is not necessarily the same as threatening officers' safety and that it may be debatable as to whether any officers were directly at immediate risk of serious harm at the moment Kaba was shot. I'm not sure where I stand as I have not seen the evidence but I can understand why some people may feel uncomfortable with the verdict as officers are trained to handle dangerous situations and so may not be as at risk as an ordinary person would be in the same situation. I think it is right that the thankfully rare decision by police to take a life should be scrutinized and that increased transparency by making evidence and records of proceedings more available would be a good thing for public confidence.
@@nathanaelsmith3553 The question is not whether the officers were at immediate risk of great or life threatening injuries, but whether they reasonably perceived that to be the case. First off, they're going to arrest someone in a car that is linked to a shooting. So right off the bat - danger. Cars have lots of places to store and hide weapons that can easily be reached for. In addition, linking that car to the shooting informs you the inhabitant of it is likely someone who would be willing to kill. As for whether they believe they were in danger - he was trying to drive through a car barricade and police were surrounding him. Had he managed to drive through those cars he could easily have killed someone.
I disagree, the process followed of taking this officer to court and putting his name into the public is wrong. It's clearly politicised. CPS will not usually take things to court with low odds of convinction, and yet the odds of this officer being convicted were really low - because when you follow his actions they were justified. We rely on firearms officers to protect us from the most dangerous threats on our streets, yet we ruin their lives when they have to make a split second decision in incredibly dangerous and high stress situations. Martyn Blake should never have gone to court.
@nathanaelsmith3553 , he wasn't just resisting arrest though was he. The video of his actions is pretty damn scary. He was using a 2.5t Audi to ram his way out of the police box (not exactly a box, I know) and he did so with complete disregard for the lives of the police nearby. In the bodycam footage released, one officer is seen jumping onto the bonnet of a car to prevent him being killed, another commented on how he thought he was going to die as his gloved hand was trapped in the door handle. The actions of Sgt Blake were not to try to ensure the arrest of Kaba, he shot Kaba to prevent the los of life of the police officers nearby!
Surprised the family hadn't released a photo of Kaba in his school uniform along with the usual comments - a popular and mischievous boy, well liked by everyone in the community and how he did a lot of voluntary work in the community. Utterly appalling that the officer's identity was released at the behest of a known gangster's family who clearly were complicit in his criminality.
Your explanation of why the Judge released the name of the officer was inadequate. Why did he take any notice of what the family wanted ? What the hell did they have to do with anything ?
Yeah , and whilst the background of the deceased was seemingly reasonable to withhold , the judge would have been aware of it . AoL did not articulate the reasoning for naming the officer to my satisfaction either.
Agreed.Cant bear how his legal analysis is riddled with his right wing views.Struggle to see how he can fairly represent people This is a fundamental problem with the British legal system.
I feel that BBB is now catering for a different type of audience. Fair play to him as that is where click volumes and financial rewards lie. Personally, I prefer straighforward quality to volume. This is why it is incumbent upon us all here to regularly show our appreciation for Al's work.
I'm not fond of the idea of the police deleting someone - but form what I hear, the guy was told there was armed police, to surrender and he decided to try and ram his way out. To my mind, as long as there isn't anything else to this, then it sounds like he chose his path and the correct decision was made. What I find shocking and more than a little odd is that they decided to name the officer before the trial knowing that Mr Kaba was part of a violent, deadly gang - thus putting the officer in danger. Why did they make that decision, given the obvious result? Now that officer has the rest of his life wrecked for doing his duty as demanded by the state. I smell identity politics.
considering the car was used in previous firearms issues, i think it's reasonable to assume it might well have had a firearm in it at the time of this incident. Its not like he gave up and was then shot.
Any officer has to prove there's reasonable grounds to suspect (reality: worry) that there is a risk. However, this might be a suspicion but how does an officer act on this suspicion? An experienced officer dealing with a known crim, might 'know' deep down that this bloke was dangerous ... but how do you prove reasonable action ON THE GROUND? You can't just say he's known to be violent so "we assume he was going to kill!" Search a car, find firearms ... you treat it as a risk. Knowing the car had 'issued' isn't evidence.
It was a > 2ton metal wankpanzer he was controlling, that's over twice the weight of my car! The courts now need to take action as they are massively more likely to kill pedestrians than a normal car!
@@alantheinquirer7658On the other hand, was there anything about his conduct and the knowledge that the car had been involved in a previous shooting, that led the police to believe that he was just an okay bloke going about his business? Personal responsibility, don't do stupid/illegal/harnful stuff, stop when the police ask you to. On the race issue, I don't think that Kaba's ethnicity was known nor the ethnicity of the multiple police officers who attended.
@@alantheinquirer7658 Personally I found the body cam footage and especially the graphic shown the the court to be rather interesting. The officer was faced with a clearly non-compliant suspect who had rammed his car into two police vehicles and then backed off into another. At this point from the shooter's view the threat would appear to be to be _relatively_ contained; the driver could not back off any further and could only select forward gear and potentially ram the shooting officer. Presumably the officer could also see into the car, see that at that point the suspect was still operating the vehicle and that only the shooting officer was in any potential immediate danger. And yet the officer claimed to have fired in order to protect his colleagues(?). There is a problem where you can train people for stressful situations but without proper psychological profiling (and sometimes even then...) it can be difficult to assess exactly how they will react when put in a life threatening position. And judging from the reporting this comes across a bit as an officer who may be a bit too reactive to risk. On the other hand though the way they executed the stop looked good and certainly better than another I've seen where they bafflingly decided to put members of the public at risk by choosing a pub as the place to perform the stop before then shooting the suspect as he _may, possibly, perhaps_ have a gun and therefore hurt the bystanders.
It's good to get an informed, balanced, idea of the situation. What we think of something is not important - it's reality. and as a general public we get plenty of commentary but most sources wash their hands of actual fact.
This is why I have a tremendous amount of faith in the jury system. Whenever I think a verdict doesn't seem right, I'm aware that I've listened to 5 minute soundbites, they've sat through possibly days of evidence.
while I think the met have gained a shoot first and ask questions later culture I agree that it did not affect the fairness of trial that the actual person accused was not , and should not, have been named
@@highpath4776 He chose to be a firearms officer and received training in when to fire. If there is enough evidence of wrongdoing that the cop was tried for a crime of such extreme seriousness, then he ought to have been named.
@@seancidy6008 I think for this there had to be a trial, otherwise the police would have been accused of a cover up. The naming made no difference to the facts considered,. However I still contend there is a trigger-happy culture in the police that fails to consider other means of bringing difficult situations to a proper conclusion. That is not easy to prove (and certainly to a criminal degree of proof). I am aware of when polide officers have been shot in their duty (the female attending a house call not aware that firearms might have been in the possession of the person theiriin, and the Libya backed general shooting, so maybe that lies in the back of police minds ?
@@highpath4776 No way does a policeman who used the weapon he is trained and paid to use in certain circumstances only, have to be tried for murder just because they shoot someone dead. There was evidence of willful misconduct, but although it fell short of what the jury felt was enough to convict on the charge in line with how the judge told them to reach a verdict, the jury was not happy acquitting the policemen; they thought he had bad intent when pulling the trigger. That is very obviously what the note from the jury was about.
@@seancidy6008 I was not aware of the judges directions or advice, it does seem english law does not have sufficeient criminal phrasing for a guilty verdict of effectively reckless discharge of a weapon with intent to kill,.
I would say that big car he was driving, attempting to use to run down officers is a dangerous weapon and being used as one. He was not pulling over, he was attempting to escape from custody and was willing to run through police and the public with his car to do it.
@@docastrov9013 Policemen have the right to use reasonable force to arrest people who should be arrested. If a policeman is going to arrest you, you are not allowed to shot him in order to remain free. Mr. Kaba did not have the right to crash into other cars in order to avoid the police. And of course, boxing it would usually be a safer alternative than just making a sign for him to stop and giving him the opportunity to flee and start a chase in a public road, and an overwhelming force helps to make clear to everybody but the most stupid of people that resistence is a bad idea. Mr. Kaba deciding that picking a fight the police was a good idea is Mr. Kaba's own fault.
The bodycam footage was on the news. He had been trying to drive away but at the time he was shot the car was stuck between two others. IDK if that changes anything but everyone makes it sounds like he was trying to mow people down at high speed
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD OTOH, that he was resisting arrest does not, in general, justify using deadly force (again, they can use REASONABLE force). If the car was unable to move and was not immediately threatening other people, shoting him was not justified. I guess the cop's defense was that he believed that Mr. Kaba was about to pull a gun.
Not being a barrister I do not have the ability to understand what good has come from naming the police officer involved in this case. A man on the Clapham omnibus reading about this might well think that the reason the family wanted him named was so someone could harm the police officer. I cannot think of any other reason which would make sense. I would also suggest that the BBC reporting which I saw, and I do not claim to have seen it all, made out the man shot was just an everyday motorist stopped by the police and then shot dead for no reason. It would appear that the man was known to the police and was not of good character and was far from co-operative when he was stopped.
It was reported that at the time of the stop the police did not know who was driving only that the car had been involved in a previous getaway - hence the character of Kaba was irrelevant to the case in court - although id did explain his non compliance with police instructions.
@@johne4273 Maybe everyone who is acquitted should get that privilege in similar cases. With a £10k contract reported out n his life it is going to cost society a lot of money to protect this police officer and his family for many years to come.
@@charleswillcock3235 yeah it's an imperfect system to be sure. I can see the logic in revealing names (in general) in case anyone comes forward with additional information. But for those acquitted it does seem grossly unfair.
Please explain a little more as to why the judge released the officer's name. it seems to serve no purpose other than to please the family who are not satisfied.
We had a case in Australia, probably 20 years ago. A guys house was broken into, they told him they had a gun to make him stay in his room as they robbed him, they decided as he was compliant, to go into his room and rob him too, but he had a katana (which was blunt but had a point) and he ran one through who died. Because he believed they had a gun, and they were willing to use it, they decided not to pursue the case.
Al - Analysis of the Hibbert vs Hall case would be most interesting . I've just downloaded the judgment document from yesterday for some light reading tonight! PS this is rapidly becoming the go-to channel for the thinking man/woman interested in lagal matters. The best things are always the result of the individual just enyoying doing the stuff. Great stuff. 👍👍👍
Thanks so much for a logical, unemotional, explanation. A far cry from the wailing that is going on over at X (nee Twitter). As someone said if he had just stopped and complied with police instructions he would be alive today - but now we know why he went into ram raid mode. Rather than stopping and complying. If any of the jurists had qualms about their decision they can all rest now that the full facts have been released. I see that the Home Secretary has now announced changes to protect officers names in these circumstances until a conviction occurs - a move in the right direction for similar cases but not all - think of the Wayne Cousins case release of his name caused other victims to come forward.
With the subsequent information being released in this case it is easier to understand how the policeman in this case reached their decision. There is a massive difference between a routine stop and a stop where there is potentially a firearm in the vehicle.
This whole fiasco has me frustrated. The media I saw, and maybe in in an echo chamber, seriously had me thinking the cop was a psycho and the deceased was a misunderstood fella in the wrong car at a bad time. Police have to do better at being clear about who these people are. Unless they were, and as I mentioned... the algorithm and echo chamber was a barrier to me.
There were reporting restrictions in place. So the media were unable to talk about any of Kaba's criminal history, gang links, or the fact that the car had been a getaway vehicle for a shooting days before he was shot! Those reporting restrictions were lifted yesterday, and the change in the narrative has been whiplash-inducing
@@Jono793And this is the UK, where armed police are not the norm. Presumably they thought that the vehicle they were following and its occupant(s) posed a real threat, to have got firearms involved in the first place.
It is hard enough get police officers to volunteer for forearms training and duty and now many must be thinking I would rather be arresting drunk drivers and someone selling weed than have my life ruined.
@@docastrov9013 The idea is a physical presence, as a deterrent, ready to respond such as at airports. Maybe you want them to have to use the firearms daily and then you get your monies worth?
A difficult case for the ‘system’ as many not satisfied with the process but the right verdict was reached so the system survives. I understand that at a very early stage the jury during the case asked for a specific definition which some have said gave a strong suggestion as to the verdict. I found it interesting that the family wanted the name of the police officer made public but then argued against the release of his ‘previous’. A certain lack of congruency.’
Interesting as always. Personally I believe the public were misled by the family and the defence. They tried to construct a scenario around Kabas character. He was due to be a father, an aspiring Architect as reported in the press, even though they knew he had a restraining order against him, he had served four years for possession on an immigration firearms firearm, was a known and active gangster leading a life of drug crime and violence and would have been charged with murder had he not been shot dead. He had never held job of any description but had access to an expensive Audi Q8. He was the worst of the worst in Londons gang warfare. Against this background the judge was wrong to name the firearms officer. What now for his future and that of his family? Lifelong protection? More than vaguely useful. Thank you.
That's a great explanation! Though I would argue (from my not a lawyer perspective) that knowing this vehicle had been a getaway car in a shooting. Combined with the driver trying to ram themselves backwards and forwards, to escape the police boxing them in. That sounds pretty relevant to someone's perception of threat. My follow-up question: Now that the reporting restrictions have been lifted on Mr Kaba's extensive criminal past, do the various media organisations, campaigners, etc, have a duty to correct the record? Seeing as how some groups and individuals have spent the last two years portraying this as a racist murder by the police, could some of them now be open to a defamation claim, if they don't publish an update? Thinking about how Caroline Cadwallader got smacked with libel costs over their reporting into Aaron Banks not being updated.
Thanks for this, it's brilliant as always. With regards to who was using the car, seeing that it was involved in firearms offences, I'm pretty sure you'd approach it and be ready for the worst-case scenario. You'd have to assume they were armed to react correctly. I mean, it turned out it was the gunman. That's what you need to approach expecting. Expect the worst, hope for the best. The information available said the vehicle had been used in 2 firearms incidents!
I remember having to work under the 'yellow card' back in the day - because of the politics got in the way of our duty and it put us all at risk as a snap decision is a reflex rather than a checklist of politically motivated appropriate conditions, unfortunately incoming fire has the right of way and wont wait for you to decide if your allowed to do what your trained to do.. .. bad people will always do bad things then make a fuss when they are made to pay for their misdeeds.
A lot of that stuff was put in place coz the police have proved themselves corrupt and prone to abuse their powers in the past. I'm sure that when they consistently clean up their act and we can trust them implicitly those kind of guidelines will beome less stringent.
In the USA, we regularly see police put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a vehicle, gun drawn. If the car moves toward them they shoot. This may be acceptable if they are certain the driver is a danger to the public, but in some of these cases the incident commenced with a traffic stop which then progresses into failure to comply to provide licence or comply then an attempted drive off. The US accepts that a police officer can purposely put themselves in harms way then shoot the driver.
It’s reasonable, as you’ve described, that the imdividual’s prior convictions weren’t available to the jury - as the officer also did not know who was driving and therefore could not consider that context in assessing the threat. However, the officer was not in a context-free scenario. They knew that as part of a specialist firearms unit they had been tasked to assist with a vehicle which was known to be linked to individuals who used firearms. So was it not reasonable for them to expect a heightened threat of firearm violence from the individual, by virtue of their own presence and also the intelligence behind their deployment?
Judge's Immunity uif 'iffy' in Australia - currently being decided in the High Court of Australia, in Re Stafford v Vasta... after the concept for lower Court Judges removed...
The story about the fake shake was very interesting because it demonstrates a jury wishing to act their power of nullification but the judge misleading them and failing to inform them of their constitutional rights to dismiss the charges subject to their conscience which is the very reason for them sitting in judgement in the first place, it’s about time that judges recognised the rights of the jury to judge not only the defendants but also the actual law under which the cases brought because the jury are in effect taking the place of what was the kings conscience in equity
Do we agree then that becoming an armed response police officer is far from being a good career choice? In which case what are the implications for people living or working in London.
Hey, I'm doing my SQE. I always find your youtube's interesting. I was just wondering if he went under art.2 would they though in art 8 on the off chance? Only his right to privacy and family life has now been shattered. His kids will be at risk and I cannot see them being able to live wherever they do. Just wondered. Thanks :)
As usual Al great explanation as to why things happened. I would be interested to know why the IOPC & CPS brought this case in the first place? They must have / should have known Caba was a violent criminal who only days before had shot and wounded another Gangster. The family must have been fully aware of their brothers gang membership, I believe the judge should have took this into account before he agreed to name the officer !
In the event that the disciplinary hearing results in the officer being dismissed, will that open up an opportunity for Kaba's family to instigate a civil claim against the Police Service? Excellent channel, by the way, enjoyable and informative.
Full disclosure, I’ve also asked this on BBB channel: Could/has a criminal with a gun ever successfully argued self defence when shooting dead another criminal who was trying to kill them? In which case they would be guilty of firearms offences but not a much more serious murder charge. I know this is similar to the Tony Martin thing, but that was a fleeing burglar.
You can till argue self defence, even if you were the initial aggressor, and acting unlawfully, say by waving a gun around. Legally though it's a much higher hurdle. And I think in practical terms a jury might be less than sympathetic.
There was the Rueben Gregory case . He got off with the shooting but jailed for possession . Police initially investigating the death on June 12, 2017, arrested Mr Gregory on suspicion of murder but he was later de-arrested and released from custody. He was subsequently prosecuted for having a shotgun without a licence and sentenced to a 10 month term in jail.
Sort of related to this case, but just a thought: If you lent someone a car after committing a crime in it, and harm comes to them, are you responsible?
I have a question. What would the police have done if they did not coincidentally have a firearms officer to hand? Wait until one arrived? Kaba was going nowhere as I understand it. Subtract the gun, and what solution would have been applied?
The Audi Q8 puts out 330bhp, which I assess is twice the power output of a Saracen six-wheeler Armoured Personnel Carrier. The car had a firearms marker on it.
Whilst it was unfortunate that Kaba died, the police were aware that the car was involved with a firearms offence within a day or two, and the manner in which it was driven the police was sufficient to cause them to think that their lives were in jeopardy. As has now been told the driver did himself take part in a very public shooting firstly in a crowded nightclub and then in the street, so he wast so innocent was he?
The Police knew the car had been used in shootings. The car was driven forwards and backwards, while the driver was trying to force his way out of the blockade. The possibility of Police been endangered of receiving horrendous crush injuries seems obvious to me. A sad outcome, but if the driver had been less shooty or less violent in his attempt to escape he would still be alive.
@stevenrix7024 No, no one would shoot out cars tyres, apart from the movies. But, I remember an invention that was supposed to fry a cars electronics and i have seen the US police try other inventions. We do need a better way of safely imobilising vehicles.
@@barrieshepherd7694 A judge in the UK can´t tell a jury to find someone guilty, though he/she can tell the jury to acquit someone. In the Bristol statue case the judge didn´t direct the jury to acquit or find guilty but spelled out the case of the prosecution and the defence (the defence had a legal case, not just well they deserve an exemption). Indeed, some think that the judge was too sympathetic to the defence in that case. Myself, I would have voted to convict if I was on the jury, it was a case of a bunch of people deciding to take the laws into their own hands.
@@Minimmalmythicist Same here it was mob vandalism. I phrased thing wrongly, I meant can't he Judge effectively advise the jury on the law and thence what a defence may/may not be
@@barrieshepherd7694 Well I thought so too, but in the video @ 11:55 he's citing a case where the jury are saying "We would acquit the defendant, but you (the judge) have directed us not to" - but they could still have acquitted him!
Was the judge not capable of joining the dots regarding the family's request to have the officer named? Did he think they just wanted to add him to their Christmas card list? Given the nature of Kaba and, especially, his close associates how can the judge have been blind to the long-term prospects for the officer and his family regardless of the outcome of the case.
The criminal life and process of Kaba has to be a failure. In and out of prison with seeming no rehabilitation, nowhere to send him away from the other influences around, no clear parental good guidance, no sense of right or wrong in the community and a happiness to break UK law (and indeed culture) of running around with guns.
Do you think the old pre-1933 Grand Jury system would have had any impact on this case if it was still in existence? The speedy verdict, and note, would suggest there were some strong feelings in this case.
There seems to be a contradiction: what would a reasonable person see as self defence and what would a well trained highly skilled Police marksman see as self defence. This is like the Post Office Legal Team defence, where they thought they were just about sticking to letter of the law, when in fact they were quire clearly breaking the law.
Interesting case and I for Police iD being with held from Public and so should our Military who also Protect us ... There have been. Dreadful cases against Military and our Police in N Ireland their families have suffered in human trauma and threats ..I hope the Home Secretary includes our Military too
N Ireland remains a different case where the police force and the paramilitary are argueably sometimes in cahoots with each other (or were). Descretion and unbiased investigation is needed in such circumstances
A question nothing to do with this case, it's to do do with private criminal productions. I watch a UA-cam video where a private prosecution is been taken against two police officers for unlawful imprisonment, , the two officers concerned have been asked by the person doing the prosecution, to make a statement each under caution. Both offices have refused. Can a person do a private prosecution compel someone to make a statement under caution to gather evidence ? . By the way I very much enjoy your videos
Thank you! Private prosecutors can't compel people to do an interview; but you can then ask the court/jury to draw an adverse inference from their refusal. Like how even with the police you can go no comment; but then you risk the adverse inference.
That's a really interesting question. I do know that before the CPS all prosecutions were technically private prosecutions, just by police officers, so I'd be interested to know how this would work!
@9:30 you refer to Osman (Osman v. the United Kingdom: ECtHR 87/1997/871/1083) as a "civilian". Surely the police (including the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire) are all civilians themselves?
You refer to what a reasonable person would think ; in this case would you expect a police officer who has to protect the public to have a different definition of reasonable to a member of the public with no peculiar responsibility other than normal duty of care. ?
3:06 diminished responsibility is one of the scariest defensives. Should still get convicted but then put a psych hospital for life. What stopping it happening again.
Would it not be reasonable to argue that as soon as someone pleads diminished responsibility they should be locked up for good without fiurther consideration in the interest of protecting the public?
Apparently jury nullification effectively ended religious persecution in this country. Can you please do a video on how it could most effectively be used to end the prohibition on cannabis?
Possession of a controlled drug, supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug and possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another are all either-way offences, which means that many cannabis cases that go to trial are heard in a magistrates' court without a jury. A fair number of cannabis cases never get to court, being disposed of via a warning or caution. All this means that jury nullification is incapable of neutralising the law in this area; any change would have to come from Parliament.
@@DavidWood2 One can demand a jury trial though for any charge that can result in a custodial sentence. Can you explain what an either-way offence is please?
@@edbop An either-way charge can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court (hence "either way"). A magistrate or District Judge will decide whether the case is so serious that it must be tried in the Crown Court. If the decision is that the case could be heard in the magistrates' court then the defendant can still elect for jury trial in the Crown Court. Electing for Crown Court trial is risky, as you might feel there is a better chance of acquittal by a jury, but the Crown Court has greater sentencing powers. This is the outline; there are quite a few nuances.
@@DavidWood2 Cool, thanks. So if one were willing to take the risk of a harsher sentence jury nullification could potentially be used end the prohibition?
The police threw this copper under the bus. Appalling. Either the training and weeding out is effective or it's not. The police force should have immediately stated they had full faith in their officers until proven otherwise.
Whether the crim got his comeuppance or not is a different question to whether it was absolutely necessary - police are often in much more dangerous situations that this one, really rather tame by many standards
Interesting look behind the scenes of this case. Shame the media couldn't find 5 minutes to set this out. I have some reservations on the anonymity issue. Is it just Police, or should (say) doctors get the same. Or TV presenters ? Excempting some from a general principle seems logicallly flawed.
@@docastrov9013 That's right they did not. What I was trying to express was that the government are now looking to have separate rules for a class of people. That, seems to me, to open the question of why only that group, why not others? As I tried to point out should (say) a doctor accused of malpractice be given anonymity also? Do we base it on profession, potential repercussion, make it the underlying principle? What is the logical analysis? I come here to learn a little about the law and what I have learnt is that there are always broader and more complicated issues.
You could have sat in the public gallery in court during the trial. Now that the trial has concluded, your only option is to pay what may well be a small fortune for a transcript of the proceedings if they were officially recorded (a Crown Court trial like the one being discussed here would always be recorded). Recording or streaming the proceedings is prohibited and would be contempt of court.
Absolutely. It is against the jury oath, which is to try the case "according to the evidence", and to talk about it in court would be contempt of court. Of course, since there's no right to interview the jurors after the case, it is possible for a jury to act beyond the evidence without anyone knowing.
One question Al on a slightly different topic: Should the dead be afforded the same libel rights as the living? As in should it be harder to libel them than it currently is given the simple fact they can't defend themselves? I raise this with regard to such as the current Al Fayed investigations, the recent death of Liam Payne and - maybe me jumping the gun here a bit here but I do wonder about the future once the proverbial dust has settled - the recent death of Alex Salmond too.
In E&W defamation claims die with the claimant. Unlike other claims where the estate could take over. But in some jurisdictions you can defame the dead. Maybe a video idea?
@@artmedialaw I'd be fascinated if you did a video on this. I mean I like ALL yours vids! Haha! But I'm thinking mainly about the comparison with Al Fayed and Alex Salmond. Salmond - to my mind anyway - appeared "guilty as sin" when they hauled him into court but with alibi evidence he provided personally his accusers were shown to be, well, lying hence his - correct - acquittal. But if they'd made the claims anytime from now onwards would his reputation have been - unlawfully? If that's the right term? - been tarnished. Also, why did the women who accused him not charged with perjury or wasting police time or whatever would be applicable? Always wondered that.
SInce you can't hurt someone who is dead, they cannot be libelled. (Which is why you have to have separate offences for interfering with a dead body - It cannot possibly be assault or some such)
@@SmileyEmoji42 Oh I understand that perfectly, and thank you for clarifying for others reading who may not be, but my actual question is "Should the dead have equal - or because they cannot personally defend themselves possibly even more - protection against being libelled than the living?"
The first key point is was it a lawful or unlawful killing. If it was lawful theres no case to answer. If it was unlawful the next the key point is premeditation. Did the officer set out with the pre planned intent to kill someone (murder) or was decision to kill made in the heat of moment (voluntary manslaughter)?
I believe (see the CPS guidance here: www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious) that voluntary manslaughter through loss of control would be incredibly hard to argue for, and the prosecution would have to argue for manslaughter themselves, as the defence would argue against it, knowing (correctly) that no jury in the land would convict for murder in this case.
6:50 I think that is a bad standard. If someone shoots another and claims that he tried to rob him I would be likely not to believe him and convict. But I the person shot had a history of robbing people I would be more likely to believe the defendant. Especially of he did not know the history how could be make a claim that matches the history. Now if there is video evidence that shows the facts then that is another matter.
I have found the idea of compromising to charge a fire arm officer manslaughter a bit oxymoronic A fire arm.officer by definition is authorised to.exercise lethal force so you cant charge him for sth thar he is explicitly sanctioned to bring about provided he carried everything out in accordance with every law and guideline in the book
Look at it the other way around; if a member of the public shot a police officer who the member of the public believed was armed and posing a danger to other members of the public, would they be acquitted ? The issue is the inherent double standards which we all know is a play.
Can you give a specific example or scenario. I really cannot imagine a copper being chased down by a gang of thugs and then the thugs being found not guilty of murder because they thought the copper had a gun.
Oddly enough this did happen when Kenneth Noye killed PC Fordham - an undercover cop who was observing Noye's property. Noye got off by claiming self-defence. Noye was described as "a businessman" at the time of the trial. In reality he was a organised criminal involved in the disposal of the loot from the Brink's Mat robbery for which he was subsequently jailed. Noye then went on to kill again in a "road rage" incident before escaping to Spain where he was eventually arrested. This time the self defence argument didn't wash with the jury and he was convicted.
Your dismissal of manslaughter was very muddled. Did not sound very convincing at all. The wrong charge was brought here. Murder was never going to stick. Ridiculous. But it is clear to me that driving a car whilst in 1st gear at 8 mph a few feet into another car does not warrant getting your fucking head blown off.
Manslaughter cannot be argued for. You have to either have a mental illness, lose control of yourself, or not mean to cause harm for manslaughter to be available. None of these applies, so it's murder or nothing. Manslaughter is a specific crime, not "murder but not quite as bad".
A CONCERN; Given the suppression of previous convictions, and accusations against Chris Kaba, that very approach by the prosecution may have prevented any consideration of (however implausible) that the Police on that night could have been 'hunting' Chris, with intent not examined. Any intent of the police due to their awareness of his past, and, any discussions the police may have had regarding that night's actions have not seen light of day.
Tell us about the uks political prisoners and the death of one of them. Why can the government get involved in sentencing and can we get a public enquiry
1. What was Kahn's role? 2. Why hadn't he been deported years ago? Not born in the UK 3. The cover up of Kaba's criminality from the jury. That's the biggy 4. The error of the judge when the judge says he wouldn't be at risk if his name was released. Now we know there's a bounty on his head.
1. Who is the Kahn you refer to? 3. Your point is most certainly not a “biggy”. Juries (in England and Wales at least) can only consider the evidence presented in court when deciding verdicts. I’ve no idea about the other issues. Perhaps others can advise.
1. He's the Mayor of London, not the CPS or IPPC. 2. Because Nick Griffin has never won and election, and as it happens he was born in South London. 3. The jury knew what the officer knew. Anyone who suggests that juries should base their decision on the character of crime victims isn't interested in justice. 4. If there's evidence of that then lets arrest those doing it, and throw them in jail for a very long time. Like a civilised society.
1. Probably nothing. He has no say in the IOPC or CPS decisions. 2. I've no idea where he was born, but seen nothing stating he was born outside the UK. 3. Not relevant, it could bias the jury. 4. Agreed, it was a foolish decision.
Not knowing the details of the situation, why do you think that the guy (sounds like a scrote like any home-grown version) needed deporting ... just because he wasn't born in the UK? It's interesting that Richard E. Grant ( actor) was born in Swaziland, Freddie Mercury (musician) was born in Zanzibar. They weren't born in the UK.
Makes a refreshing change to listen to something calm and reasoned regarding this case. Thanks
I think two things about this case. Both that the right verdict was reached, and the right process was followed. I would suggest to those that think a community is "traumatised" by this that they consider the trauma the like of Kaba inflict every day, and focus their efforts to rooting out his ilk from their community, ensuring they are behind bars instead.
Exactly.
A murderer was killed by police.
@@john_michael_white I'm not shedding any tears for Kaba but the counter argument that I have heard is that resisting arrest is not necessarily the same as threatening officers' safety and that it may be debatable as to whether any officers were directly at immediate risk of serious harm at the moment Kaba was shot. I'm not sure where I stand as I have not seen the evidence but I can understand why some people may feel uncomfortable with the verdict as officers are trained to handle dangerous situations and so may not be as at risk as an ordinary person would be in the same situation. I think it is right that the thankfully rare decision by police to take a life should be scrutinized and that increased transparency by making evidence and records of proceedings more available would be a good thing for public confidence.
@@nathanaelsmith3553
The question is not whether the officers were at immediate risk of great or life threatening injuries, but whether they reasonably perceived that to be the case.
First off, they're going to arrest someone in a car that is linked to a shooting. So right off the bat - danger. Cars have lots of places to store and hide weapons that can easily be reached for.
In addition, linking that car to the shooting informs you the inhabitant of it is likely someone who would be willing to kill.
As for whether they believe they were in danger - he was trying to drive through a car barricade and police were surrounding him. Had he managed to drive through those cars he could easily have killed someone.
I disagree, the process followed of taking this officer to court and putting his name into the public is wrong. It's clearly politicised.
CPS will not usually take things to court with low odds of convinction, and yet the odds of this officer being convicted were really low - because when you follow his actions they were justified.
We rely on firearms officers to protect us from the most dangerous threats on our streets, yet we ruin their lives when they have to make a split second decision in incredibly dangerous and high stress situations.
Martyn Blake should never have gone to court.
@nathanaelsmith3553 , he wasn't just resisting arrest though was he. The video of his actions is pretty damn scary.
He was using a 2.5t Audi to ram his way out of the police box (not exactly a box, I know) and he did so with complete disregard for the lives of the police nearby.
In the bodycam footage released, one officer is seen jumping onto the bonnet of a car to prevent him being killed, another commented on how he thought he was going to die as his gloved hand was trapped in the door handle.
The actions of Sgt Blake were not to try to ensure the arrest of Kaba, he shot Kaba to prevent the los of life of the police officers nearby!
Surprised the family hadn't released a photo of Kaba in his school uniform along with the usual comments - a popular and mischievous boy, well liked by everyone in the community and how he did a lot of voluntary work in the community. Utterly appalling that the officer's identity was released at the behest of a known gangster's family who clearly were complicit in his criminality.
And wanted to be an architect😅
Thank you for your calm analysis of this case.
Your explanation of why the Judge released the name of the officer was inadequate. Why did he take any notice of what the family wanted ? What the hell did they have to do with anything ?
Yeah , and whilst the background of the deceased was seemingly reasonable to withhold , the judge would have been aware of it . AoL did not articulate the reasoning for naming the officer to my satisfaction either.
I really appreciate your videos.
Clear, concise, honest...and not just clickbait by a lawyer on the make US-style.
This video sums up why I prefer your channel to Dans, who seems to be getting far too political for my liking. Keep up this vaguely useful channel 😉😅
Couldn't agree more.
Agreed.Cant bear how his legal analysis is riddled with his right wing views.Struggle to see how he can fairly represent people This is a fundamental problem with the British legal system.
It's the Daily Mail of legal explanations. ;)
Nonsense, you must have left leaning views, Labour are in power so that`s the news.
I feel that BBB is now catering for a different type of audience. Fair play to him as that is where click volumes and financial rewards lie. Personally, I prefer straighforward quality to volume. This is why it is incumbent upon us all here to regularly show our appreciation for Al's work.
I'm not fond of the idea of the police deleting someone - but form what I hear, the guy was told there was armed police, to surrender and he decided to try and ram his way out. To my mind, as long as there isn't anything else to this, then it sounds like he chose his path and the correct decision was made.
What I find shocking and more than a little odd is that they decided to name the officer before the trial knowing that Mr Kaba was part of a violent, deadly gang - thus putting the officer in danger. Why did they make that decision, given the obvious result? Now that officer has the rest of his life wrecked for doing his duty as demanded by the state.
I smell identity politics.
considering the car was used in previous firearms issues, i think it's reasonable to assume it might well have had a firearm in it at the time of this incident. Its not like he gave up and was then shot.
Any officer has to prove there's reasonable grounds to suspect (reality: worry) that there is a risk.
However, this might be a suspicion but how does an officer act on this suspicion?
An experienced officer dealing with a known crim, might 'know' deep down that this bloke was dangerous ... but how do you prove reasonable action ON THE GROUND? You can't just say he's known to be violent so "we assume he was going to kill!"
Search a car, find firearms ... you treat it as a risk. Knowing the car had 'issued' isn't evidence.
It was a > 2ton metal wankpanzer he was controlling, that's over twice the weight of my car! The courts now need to take action as they are massively more likely to kill pedestrians than a normal car!
@@alantheinquirer7658On the other hand, was there anything about his conduct and the knowledge that the car had been involved in a previous shooting, that led the police to believe that he was just an okay bloke going about his business?
Personal responsibility, don't do stupid/illegal/harnful stuff, stop when the police ask you to.
On the race issue, I don't think that Kaba's ethnicity was known nor the ethnicity of the multiple police officers who attended.
@@alantheinquirer7658 Personally I found the body cam footage and especially the graphic shown the the court to be rather interesting.
The officer was faced with a clearly non-compliant suspect who had rammed his car into two police vehicles and then backed off into another. At this point from the shooter's view the threat would appear to be to be _relatively_ contained; the driver could not back off any further and could only select forward gear and potentially ram the shooting officer. Presumably the officer could also see into the car, see that at that point the suspect was still operating the vehicle and that only the shooting officer was in any potential immediate danger. And yet the officer claimed to have fired in order to protect his colleagues(?).
There is a problem where you can train people for stressful situations but without proper psychological profiling (and sometimes even then...) it can be difficult to assess exactly how they will react when put in a life threatening position. And judging from the reporting this comes across a bit as an officer who may be a bit too reactive to risk.
On the other hand though the way they executed the stop looked good and certainly better than another I've seen where they bafflingly decided to put members of the public at risk by choosing a pub as the place to perform the stop before then shooting the suspect as he _may, possibly, perhaps_ have a gun and therefore hurt the bystanders.
@@timballam3675 So also ban lorries, vans & trailers?
It's good to get an informed, balanced, idea of the situation.
What we think of something is not important - it's reality. and as a general public we get plenty of commentary but most sources wash their hands of actual fact.
This is why I have a tremendous amount of faith in the jury system. Whenever I think a verdict doesn't seem right, I'm aware that I've listened to 5 minute soundbites, they've sat through possibly days of evidence.
Thanks for the clear explanation. I think it was wrong that the police officer was named prior to conviction. Very interesting, useful and accurate
while I think the met have gained a shoot first and ask questions later culture I agree that it did not affect the fairness of trial that the actual person accused was not , and should not, have been named
@@highpath4776 He chose to be a firearms officer and received training in when to fire. If there is enough evidence of wrongdoing that the cop was tried for a crime of such extreme seriousness, then he ought to have been named.
@@seancidy6008 I think for this there had to be a trial, otherwise the police would have been accused of a cover up. The naming made no difference to the facts considered,. However I still contend there is a trigger-happy culture in the police that fails to consider other means of bringing difficult situations to a proper conclusion. That is not easy to prove (and certainly to a criminal degree of proof). I am aware of when polide officers have been shot in their duty (the female attending a house call not aware that firearms might have been in the possession of the person theiriin, and the Libya backed general shooting, so maybe that lies in the back of police minds ?
@@highpath4776 No way does a policeman who used the weapon he is trained and paid to use in certain circumstances only, have to be tried for murder just because they shoot someone dead. There was evidence of willful misconduct, but although it fell short of what the jury felt was enough to convict on the charge in line with how the judge told them to reach a verdict, the jury was not happy acquitting the policemen; they thought he had bad intent when pulling the trigger. That is very obviously what the note from the jury was about.
@@seancidy6008 I was not aware of the judges directions or advice, it does seem english law does not have sufficeient criminal phrasing for a guilty verdict of effectively reckless discharge of a weapon with intent to kill,.
I would say that big car he was driving, attempting to use to run down officers is a dangerous weapon and being used as one. He was not pulling over, he was attempting to escape from custody and was willing to run through police and the public with his car to do it.
But the police created that danger. They boxed him in and pulled guns on him.
@@docastrov9013 Policemen have the right to use reasonable force to arrest people who should be arrested. If a policeman is going to arrest you, you are not allowed to shot him in order to remain free. Mr. Kaba did not have the right to crash into other cars in order to avoid the police.
And of course, boxing it would usually be a safer alternative than just making a sign for him to stop and giving him the opportunity to flee and start a chase in a public road, and an overwhelming force helps to make clear to everybody but the most stupid of people that resistence is a bad idea.
Mr. Kaba deciding that picking a fight the police was a good idea is Mr. Kaba's own fault.
@@docastrov9013 Yet he was still moving the car though. He just had to follow orders and obey, not put his foot on the gas pedal.
The bodycam footage was on the news. He had been trying to drive away but at the time he was shot the car was stuck between two others. IDK if that changes anything but everyone makes it sounds like he was trying to mow people down at high speed
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD OTOH, that he was resisting arrest does not, in general, justify using deadly force (again, they can use REASONABLE force). If the car was unable to move and was not immediately threatening other people, shoting him was not justified.
I guess the cop's defense was that he believed that Mr. Kaba was about to pull a gun.
Not being a barrister I do not have the ability to understand what good has come from naming the police officer involved in this case. A man on the Clapham omnibus reading about this might well think that the reason the family wanted him named was so someone could harm the police officer. I cannot think of any other reason which would make sense. I would also suggest that the BBC reporting which I saw, and I do not claim to have seen it all, made out the man shot was just an everyday motorist stopped by the police and then shot dead for no reason. It would appear that the man was known to the police and was not of good character and was far from co-operative when he was stopped.
And tried to run over the arresting officers.
It was reported that at the time of the stop the police did not know who was driving only that the car had been involved in a previous getaway - hence the character of Kaba was irrelevant to the case in court - although id did explain his non compliance with police instructions.
No one else gets that privilege why should the police be any different?
@@johne4273 Maybe everyone who is acquitted should get that privilege in similar cases. With a £10k contract reported out n his life it is going to cost society a lot of money to protect this police officer and his family for many years to come.
@@charleswillcock3235 yeah it's an imperfect system to be sure. I can see the logic in revealing names (in general) in case anyone comes forward with additional information. But for those acquitted it does seem grossly unfair.
Please explain a little more as to why the judge released the officer's name. it seems to serve no purpose other than to please the family who are not satisfied.
We had a case in Australia, probably 20 years ago. A guys house was broken into, they told him they had a gun to make him stay in his room as they robbed him, they decided as he was compliant, to go into his room and rob him too, but he had a katana (which was blunt but had a point) and he ran one through who died. Because he believed they had a gun, and they were willing to use it, they decided not to pursue the case.
A UA-camr called Dave's Lemonade talked about that case - he was friends with the guy who died when they were at school.
Really interesting, especially about the manslaughter charge
Al - Analysis of the Hibbert vs Hall case would be most interesting . I've just downloaded the judgment document from yesterday for some light reading tonight!
PS this is rapidly becoming the go-to channel for the thinking man/woman interested in lagal matters. The best things are always the result of the individual just enyoying doing the stuff. Great stuff. 👍👍👍
I am planning doing a vid on that. Maybe this weekend.
Thanks so much for a logical, unemotional, explanation. A far cry from the wailing that is going on over at X (nee Twitter). As someone said if he had just stopped and complied with police instructions he would be alive today - but now we know why he went into ram raid mode. Rather than stopping and complying.
If any of the jurists had qualms about their decision they can all rest now that the full facts have been released.
I see that the Home Secretary has now announced changes to protect officers names in these circumstances until a conviction occurs - a move in the right direction for similar cases but not all - think of the Wayne Cousins case release of his name caused other victims to come forward.
I suspect the killing of a woman might be treated differently, does (should?) the secretary of state have discretion ?
With the subsequent information being released in this case it is easier to understand how the policeman in this case reached their decision. There is a massive difference between a routine stop and a stop where there is potentially a firearm in the vehicle.
This whole fiasco has me frustrated.
The media I saw, and maybe in in an echo chamber, seriously had me thinking the cop was a psycho and the deceased was a misunderstood fella in the wrong car at a bad time.
Police have to do better at being clear about who these people are.
Unless they were, and as I mentioned... the algorithm and echo chamber was a barrier to me.
There were reporting restrictions in place. So the media were unable to talk about any of Kaba's criminal history, gang links, or the fact that the car had been a getaway vehicle for a shooting days before he was shot!
Those reporting restrictions were lifted yesterday, and the change in the narrative has been whiplash-inducing
which is why we let evidence speak in a court of law to 12 reasonable members of the public
@@Jono793And this is the UK, where armed police are not the norm. Presumably they thought that the vehicle they were following and its occupant(s) posed a real threat, to have got firearms involved in the first place.
It is hard enough get police officers to volunteer for forearms training and duty and now many must be thinking I would rather be arresting drunk drivers and someone selling weed than have my life ruined.
Funny, they seem to love swaggering around with guns doing nothing.
@@docastrov9013 The idea is a physical presence, as a deterrent, ready to respond such as at airports. Maybe you want them to have to use the firearms daily and then you get your monies worth?
A difficult case for the ‘system’ as many not satisfied with the process but the right verdict was reached so the system survives.
I understand that at a very early stage the jury during the case asked for a specific definition which some have said gave a strong suggestion as to the verdict.
I found it interesting that the family wanted the name of the police officer made public but then argued against the release of his ‘previous’. A certain lack of congruency.’
Interesting as always.
Personally I believe the public were misled by the family and the defence. They tried to construct a scenario around Kabas character. He was due to be a father, an aspiring Architect as reported in the press, even though they knew he had a restraining order against him, he had served four years for possession on an immigration firearms firearm, was a known and active gangster leading a life of drug crime and violence and would have been charged with murder had he not been shot dead. He had never held job of any description but had access to an expensive Audi Q8. He was the worst of the worst in Londons gang warfare. Against this background the judge was wrong to name the firearms officer. What now for his future and that of his family? Lifelong protection?
More than vaguely useful. Thank you.
That's a great explanation!
Though I would argue (from my not a lawyer perspective) that knowing this vehicle had been a getaway car in a shooting. Combined with the driver trying to ram themselves backwards and forwards, to escape the police boxing them in. That sounds pretty relevant to someone's perception of threat.
My follow-up question: Now that the reporting restrictions have been lifted on Mr Kaba's extensive criminal past, do the various media organisations, campaigners, etc, have a duty to correct the record?
Seeing as how some groups and individuals have spent the last two years portraying this as a racist murder by the police, could some of them now be open to a defamation claim, if they don't publish an update?
Thinking about how Caroline Cadwallader got smacked with libel costs over their reporting into Aaron Banks not being updated.
Thanks for this, it's brilliant as always.
With regards to who was using the car, seeing that it was involved in firearms offences, I'm pretty sure you'd approach it and be ready for the worst-case scenario. You'd have to assume they were armed to react correctly.
I mean, it turned out it was the gunman. That's what you need to approach expecting. Expect the worst, hope for the best.
The information available said the vehicle had been used in 2 firearms incidents!
I remember having to work under the 'yellow card' back in the day - because of the politics got in the way of our duty and it put us all at risk as a snap decision is a reflex rather than a checklist of politically motivated appropriate conditions, unfortunately incoming fire has the right of way and wont wait for you to decide if your allowed to do what your trained to do.. .. bad people will always do bad things then make a fuss when they are made to pay for their misdeeds.
A lot of that stuff was put in place coz the police have proved themselves corrupt and prone to abuse their powers in the past. I'm sure that when they consistently clean up their act and we can trust them implicitly those kind of guidelines will beome less stringent.
In the USA, we regularly see police put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a vehicle, gun drawn. If the car moves toward them they shoot. This may be acceptable if they are certain the driver is a danger to the public, but in some of these cases the incident commenced with a traffic stop which then progresses into failure to comply to provide licence or comply then an attempted drive off. The US accepts that a police officer can purposely put themselves in harms way then shoot the driver.
Would be very interesting to see what that note said.
Very very interesting, you explained it brilliantly. Thank you ❤
It’s reasonable, as you’ve described, that the imdividual’s prior convictions weren’t available to the jury - as the officer also did not know who was driving and therefore could not consider that context in assessing the threat.
However, the officer was not in a context-free scenario. They knew that as part of a specialist firearms unit they had been tasked to assist with a vehicle which was known to be linked to individuals who used firearms.
So was it not reasonable for them to expect a heightened threat of firearm violence from the individual, by virtue of their own presence and also the intelligence behind their deployment?
Judge's Immunity uif 'iffy' in Australia - currently being decided in the High Court of Australia, in Re Stafford v Vasta... after the concept for lower Court Judges removed...
The story about the fake shake was very interesting because it demonstrates a jury wishing to act their power of nullification but the judge misleading them and failing to inform them of their constitutional rights to dismiss the charges subject to their conscience which is the very reason for them sitting in judgement in the first place, it’s about time that judges recognised the rights of the jury to judge not only the defendants but also the actual law under which the cases brought because the jury are in effect taking the place of what was the kings conscience in equity
Thanks Al. As always very interesting.
Do we agree then that becoming an armed response police officer is far from being a good career choice? In which case what are the implications for people living or working in London.
Martyn Blake should never have gone to trial.
Hey, I'm doing my SQE. I always find your youtube's interesting. I was just wondering if he went under art.2 would they though in art 8 on the off chance? Only his right to privacy and family life has now been shattered. His kids will be at risk and I cannot see them being able to live wherever they do. Just wondered. Thanks :)
As usual Al great explanation as to why things happened. I would be interested to know why the IOPC & CPS brought this case in the first place? They must have / should have known Caba was a violent criminal who only days before had shot and wounded another Gangster. The family must have been fully aware of their brothers gang membership, I believe the judge should have took this into account before he agreed to name the officer !
Thanks Al! Really interesting!
In the event that the disciplinary hearing results in the officer being dismissed, will that open up an opportunity for Kaba's family to instigate a civil claim against the Police Service? Excellent channel, by the way, enjoyable and informative.
Full disclosure, I’ve also asked this on BBB channel:
Could/has a criminal with a gun ever successfully argued self defence when shooting dead another criminal who was trying to kill them?
In which case they would be guilty of firearms offences but not a much more serious murder charge. I know this is similar to the Tony Martin thing, but that was a fleeing burglar.
You can till argue self defence, even if you were the initial aggressor, and acting unlawfully, say by waving a gun around. Legally though it's a much higher hurdle. And I think in practical terms a jury might be less than sympathetic.
There was the Rueben Gregory case . He got off with the shooting but jailed for possession .
Police initially investigating the death on June 12, 2017, arrested Mr Gregory on suspicion of murder but he was later de-arrested and released from custody. He was subsequently prosecuted for having a shotgun without a licence and sentenced to a 10 month term in jail.
@@artmedialaw Thanks!
Sort of related to this case, but just a thought:
If you lent someone a car after committing a crime in it, and harm comes to them, are you responsible?
Didn't know someone has put £10k for him to be unalived!
It must be true if the press say so!
I have a question. What would the police have done if they did not coincidentally have a firearms officer to hand? Wait until one arrived? Kaba was going nowhere as I understand it. Subtract the gun, and what solution would have been applied?
The Audi Q8 puts out 330bhp, which I assess is twice the power output of a Saracen six-wheeler Armoured Personnel Carrier.
The car had a firearms marker on it.
If the police didn’t have a firearms officers to hand the police would have been on a follow do not stop orders.
Whilst it was unfortunate that Kaba died, the police were aware that the car was involved with a firearms offence within a day or two, and the manner in which it was driven the police was sufficient to cause them to think that their lives were in jeopardy. As has now been told the driver did himself take part in a very public shooting firstly in a crowded nightclub and then in the street, so he wast so innocent was he?
The Police knew the car had been used in shootings. The car was driven forwards and backwards, while the driver was trying to force his way out of the blockade. The possibility of Police been endangered of receiving horrendous crush injuries seems obvious to me. A sad outcome, but if the driver had been less shooty or less violent in his attempt to escape he would still be alive.
Other possibilities: could the police have shot out the car’s tyres or otherwise immobilised it?
@stevenrix7024 No, no one would shoot out cars tyres, apart from the movies. But, I remember an invention that was supposed to fry a cars electronics and i have seen the US police try other inventions. We do need a better way of safely imobilising vehicles.
Re that last point: if a judge directs a jury to return a particular verdict, can the jury disregard it and return a different one?
I think so - is that what happened in the Bristol Statue in the drink case?
@@barrieshepherd7694 A judge in the UK can´t tell a jury to find someone guilty, though he/she can tell the jury to acquit someone. In the Bristol statue case the judge didn´t direct the jury to acquit or find guilty but spelled out the case of the prosecution and the defence (the defence had a legal case, not just well they deserve an exemption).
Indeed, some think that the judge was too sympathetic to the defence in that case.
Myself, I would have voted to convict if I was on the jury, it was a case of a bunch of people deciding to take the laws into their own hands.
@@Minimmalmythicist Same here it was mob vandalism. I phrased thing wrongly, I meant can't he Judge effectively advise the jury on the law and thence what a defence may/may not be
@@barrieshepherd7694 Well I thought so too, but in the video @ 11:55 he's citing a case where the jury are saying "We would acquit the defendant, but you (the judge) have directed us not to" - but they could still have acquitted him!
@@philuribe7863 Yep - probably straying into jury nullification territory. Hopefully Al may explain in a future video.
Thanks - fab.
Was the judge not capable of joining the dots regarding the family's request to have the officer named? Did he think they just wanted to add him to their Christmas card list? Given the nature of Kaba and, especially, his close associates how can the judge have been blind to the long-term prospects for the officer and his family regardless of the outcome of the case.
The criminal life and process of Kaba has to be a failure. In and out of prison with seeming no rehabilitation, nowhere to send him away from the other influences around, no clear parental good guidance, no sense of right or wrong in the community and a happiness to break UK law (and indeed culture) of running around with guns.
Do you think the old pre-1933 Grand Jury system would have had any impact on this case if it was still in existence? The speedy verdict, and note, would suggest there were some strong feelings in this case.
Have you done a video on Jury Nullification? If not, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
I have! Search on here for ‘juries’. Or it might be’jurors’
There seems to be a contradiction: what would a reasonable person see as self defence and what would a well trained highly skilled Police marksman see as self defence. This is like the Post Office Legal Team defence, where they thought they were just about sticking to letter of the law, when in fact they were quire clearly breaking the law.
Interesting case and I for Police iD being with held from Public and so should our Military who also Protect us ... There have been. Dreadful cases against Military and our Police in N Ireland their families have suffered in human trauma and threats ..I hope the Home Secretary includes our Military too
N Ireland remains a different case where the police force and the paramilitary are argueably sometimes in cahoots with each other (or were). Descretion and unbiased investigation is needed in such circumstances
Here we go…
A question nothing to do with this case, it's to do do with private criminal productions. I watch a UA-cam video where a private prosecution is been taken against two police officers for unlawful imprisonment, , the two officers concerned have been asked by the person doing the prosecution, to make a statement each under caution. Both offices have refused. Can a person do a private prosecution compel someone to make a statement under caution to gather evidence ? . By the way I very much enjoy your videos
Thank you!
Private prosecutors can't compel people to do an interview; but you can then ask the court/jury to draw an adverse inference from their refusal. Like how even with the police you can go no comment; but then you risk the adverse inference.
That's a really interesting question. I do know that before the CPS all prosecutions were technically private prosecutions, just by police officers, so I'd be interested to know how this would work!
@9:30 you refer to Osman (Osman v. the United Kingdom: ECtHR 87/1997/871/1083) as a "civilian". Surely the police (including the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire) are all civilians themselves?
You refer to what a reasonable person would think ; in this case would you expect a police officer who has to protect the public to have a different definition of reasonable to a member of the public with no peculiar responsibility other than normal duty of care. ?
3:06 diminished responsibility is one of the scariest defensives. Should still get convicted but then put a psych hospital for life. What stopping it happening again.
Would it not be reasonable to argue that as soon as someone pleads diminished responsibility they should be locked up for good without fiurther consideration in the interest of protecting the public?
The expert opinion of psychiatrists (in principle)
Apparently jury nullification effectively ended religious persecution in this country. Can you please do a video on how it could most effectively be used to end the prohibition on cannabis?
Possession of a controlled drug, supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug and possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another are all either-way offences, which means that many cannabis cases that go to trial are heard in a magistrates' court without a jury. A fair number of cannabis cases never get to court, being disposed of via a warning or caution. All this means that jury nullification is incapable of neutralising the law in this area; any change would have to come from Parliament.
@@DavidWood2 One can demand a jury trial though for any charge that can result in a custodial sentence. Can you explain what an either-way offence is please?
@@edbop An either-way charge can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court (hence "either way"). A magistrate or District Judge will decide whether the case is so serious that it must be tried in the Crown Court. If the decision is that the case could be heard in the magistrates' court then the defendant can still elect for jury trial in the Crown Court. Electing for Crown Court trial is risky, as you might feel there is a better chance of acquittal by a jury, but the Crown Court has greater sentencing powers.
This is the outline; there are quite a few nuances.
@@DavidWood2 Cool, thanks. So if one were willing to take the risk of a harsher sentence jury nullification could potentially be used end the prohibition?
The police threw this copper under the bus. Appalling. Either the training and weeding out is effective or it's not. The police force should have immediately stated they had full faith in their officers until proven otherwise.
Technically I think it was the CPS, playing "social concern" that did the throwing.
Whether the crim got his comeuppance or not is a different question to whether it was absolutely necessary - police are often in much more dangerous situations that this one, really rather tame by many standards
Interesting look behind the scenes of this case. Shame the media couldn't find 5 minutes to set this out.
I have some reservations on the anonymity issue. Is it just Police, or should (say) doctors get the same. Or TV presenters ?
Excempting some from a general principle seems logicallly flawed.
The police who stopped the car had zero idea who was driving. Kaba's background was irrelevant.
@@docastrov9013 That's right they did not.
What I was trying to express was that the government are now looking to have separate rules for a class of people. That, seems to me, to open the question of why only that group, why not others?
As I tried to point out should (say) a doctor accused of malpractice be given anonymity also? Do we base it on profession, potential repercussion, make it the underlying principle? What is the logical analysis?
I come here to learn a little about the law and what I have learnt is that there are always broader and more complicated issues.
Is there a way for a regular citizen like me to review the evidence presented to the jury in order to understand how they reached their verdict?
You could have sat in the public gallery in court during the trial. Now that the trial has concluded, your only option is to pay what may well be a small fortune for a transcript of the proceedings if they were officially recorded (a Crown Court trial like the one being discussed here would always be recorded). Recording or streaming the proceedings is prohibited and would be contempt of court.
Is Jury Nullification not allowed in the UK?
Absolutely. It is against the jury oath, which is to try the case "according to the evidence", and to talk about it in court would be contempt of court.
Of course, since there's no right to interview the jurors after the case, it is possible for a jury to act beyond the evidence without anyone knowing.
More than vaguely accurate? Scandalous!
One question Al on a slightly different topic: Should the dead be afforded the same libel rights as the living? As in should it be harder to libel them than it currently is given the simple fact they can't defend themselves? I raise this with regard to such as the current Al Fayed investigations, the recent death of Liam Payne and - maybe me jumping the gun here a bit here but I do wonder about the future once the proverbial dust has settled - the recent death of Alex Salmond too.
In E&W defamation claims die with the claimant. Unlike other claims where the estate could take over. But in some jurisdictions you can defame the dead. Maybe a video idea?
@@artmedialaw I'd be fascinated if you did a video on this. I mean I like ALL yours vids! Haha! But I'm thinking mainly about the comparison with Al Fayed and Alex Salmond. Salmond - to my mind anyway - appeared "guilty as sin" when they hauled him into court but with alibi evidence he provided personally his accusers were shown to be, well, lying hence his - correct - acquittal. But if they'd made the claims anytime from now onwards would his reputation have been - unlawfully? If that's the right term? - been tarnished. Also, why did the women who accused him not charged with perjury or wasting police time or whatever would be applicable? Always wondered that.
SInce you can't hurt someone who is dead, they cannot be libelled. (Which is why you have to have separate offences for interfering with a dead body - It cannot possibly be assault or some such)
@@SmileyEmoji42 Oh I understand that perfectly, and thank you for clarifying for others reading who may not be, but my actual question is "Should the dead have equal - or because they cannot personally defend themselves possibly even more - protection against being libelled than the living?"
The first key point is was it a lawful or unlawful killing. If it was lawful theres no case to answer. If it was unlawful the next the key point is premeditation. Did the officer set out with the pre planned intent to kill someone (murder) or was decision to kill made in the heat of moment (voluntary manslaughter)?
I believe (see the CPS guidance here: www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious) that voluntary manslaughter through loss of control would be incredibly hard to argue for, and the prosecution would have to argue for manslaughter themselves, as the defence would argue against it, knowing (correctly) that no jury in the land would convict for murder in this case.
Do you not have an office?
Was he on bail when he was shot and if so what for as I find the current reporting to be vague on this issue.
An arrest warrent was out for him for a shooting the week before.
An arrest warrent was out for him for a shooting the week before.
Is that a Merlin I hear in the background or an S92? Guesses on a post card
Merlin. From RNAS Culdrose. They always seem to pop up when I’m filming!
6:50 I think that is a bad standard. If someone shoots another and claims that he tried to rob him I would be likely not to believe him and convict. But I the person shot had a history of robbing people I would be more likely to believe the defendant. Especially of he did not know the history how could be make a claim that matches the history.
Now if there is video evidence that shows the facts then that is another matter.
Even if someone is robbing you you don't get to kill them unless there's a significant risk to life. This isn't the US.
As basically guns are illegal in the UK how did someone get shot? If the people are disarmed then so should the police be.
If people didn't do illegal things we would disband the police, not just disarm them
I have found the idea of compromising to charge a fire arm officer manslaughter a bit oxymoronic
A fire arm.officer by definition is authorised to.exercise lethal force so you cant charge him for sth thar he is explicitly sanctioned to bring about provided he carried everything out in accordance with every law and guideline in the book
Look at it the other way around; if a member of the public shot a police officer who the member of the public believed was armed and posing a danger to other members of the public, would they be acquitted ?
The issue is the inherent double standards which we all know is a play.
???
Can you give a specific example or scenario. I really cannot imagine a copper being chased down by a gang of thugs and then the thugs being found not guilty of murder because they thought the copper had a gun.
Oddly enough this did happen when Kenneth Noye killed PC Fordham - an undercover cop who was observing Noye's property. Noye got off by claiming self-defence. Noye was described as "a businessman" at the time of the trial. In reality he was a organised criminal involved in the disposal of the loot from the Brink's Mat robbery for which he was subsequently jailed. Noye then went on to kill again in a "road rage" incident before escaping to Spain where he was eventually arrested. This time the self defence argument didn't wash with the jury and he was convicted.
Are we sure that the defence of diminished responsibility wasn't claimed considering that the defendant was a police officer?
Your dismissal of manslaughter was very muddled. Did not sound very convincing at all. The wrong charge was brought here. Murder was never going to stick. Ridiculous. But it is clear to me that driving a car whilst in 1st gear at 8 mph a few feet into another car does not warrant getting your fucking head blown off.
Manslaughter cannot be argued for. You have to either have a mental illness, lose control of yourself, or not mean to cause harm for manslaughter to be available. None of these applies, so it's murder or nothing. Manslaughter is a specific crime, not "murder but not quite as bad".
@@davcrav I`m not arguing with you. Just look up the ingredients of "gross negligence manslaughter" in English law. It all fits.
Gangster executed by Police.
A CONCERN;
Given the suppression of previous convictions, and accusations against Chris Kaba, that very approach by the prosecution may have prevented any consideration of (however implausible) that the Police on that night could have been 'hunting' Chris, with intent not examined. Any intent of the police due to their awareness of his past, and, any discussions the police may have had regarding that night's actions have not seen light of day.
But the cops who pulled him didn't know who he was.
@@docastrov9013 Without examination of all involved, under oath of exactly that, police position is convenient.
Tell us about the uks political prisoners and the death of one of them. Why can the government get involved in sentencing and can we get a public enquiry
1. What was Kahn's role?
2. Why hadn't he been deported years ago? Not born in the UK
3. The cover up of Kaba's criminality from the jury. That's the biggy
4. The error of the judge when the judge says he wouldn't be at risk if his name was released. Now we know there's a bounty on his head.
No. 3 - not admissible.
1. Who is the Kahn you refer to?
3. Your point is most certainly not a “biggy”. Juries (in England and Wales at least) can only consider the evidence presented in court when deciding verdicts.
I’ve no idea about the other issues. Perhaps others can advise.
1. He's the Mayor of London, not the CPS or IPPC.
2. Because Nick Griffin has never won and election, and as it happens he was born in South London.
3. The jury knew what the officer knew. Anyone who suggests that juries should base their decision on the character of crime victims isn't interested in justice.
4. If there's evidence of that then lets arrest those doing it, and throw them in jail for a very long time. Like a civilised society.
1. Probably nothing. He has no say in the IOPC or CPS decisions.
2. I've no idea where he was born, but seen nothing stating he was born outside the UK.
3. Not relevant, it could bias the jury.
4. Agreed, it was a foolish decision.
Not knowing the details of the situation, why do you think that the guy (sounds like a scrote like any home-grown version) needed deporting ... just because he wasn't born in the UK?
It's interesting that Richard E. Grant ( actor) was born in Swaziland, Freddie Mercury (musician) was born in Zanzibar. They weren't born in the UK.