Letter: CPS should follow the lead of inquest juries

Dr Gary Slapper
Friday 01 August 1997 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: One anomaly cited by Andreas Whittam Smith ("There can be no hiding places for corrupt police", 29 July) is a truly indefensible part of the criminal justice system.

In order for an inquest jury to return a verdict of "unlawfully killed", it must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that death resulted from criminal homicide.

Where such verdicts are returned, as they were in the cases of Richard O'Brien and Shiji Lapite, the authorities have a ready-made indication that another jury in a criminal trial would convict those responsible for the death. What clearer evidence could the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) require to prompt it to prosecute? In most cases it must just guess what a jury would make of the facts.

It is the privilege of the coroner's jury to have the facts of a case examined for them in great detail during an inquest with as many witnesses and experts testifying as it takes to discover how the deceased came by his death. It is therefore perverse for the unequivocal verdict of "unlawfully killed" to be disregarded by the CPS in cases where there is no doubt about whose conduct was intimately linked to the deaths in question.

Dr GARY SLAPPER

The Law School

Staffordshire University

Stoke-on-Trent

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in