Coroner to examine whether July suicide bombings could have been prevented

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BounceBanana, Oct 11, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC News - 7/7 bombs acts of 'merciless savagery', inquests told

    I ask you to consider just 21 years ago. 22.9.89 eleven Royal Marines murdered by an IRA bombing at Deal RM Barracks.

    There were warnings given to Kent Police with 26 IRA related lines of inquiry within them.

    But HM Coroner did not rigorously examine whether the deaths were preventable.

    In 1995 a child patient in post op ICU at Guys died when power was cut off the hospital (by rogue switching control of the hospital backup generator system) followed by failure of the hospital emergemncy generator cutting power to life support. The Coroner did not examine if the death was preventable and Kent Police refused crime complaints and refused to cross refer the death case with their Deal Bombing inquiry.

    Arguments were made (by the man who gave Kent Plod the warnings on Deal Barracks and on Guys they ignored) to European Court of Human Rights and to UK Govt that Inquests are a part of our Common Law and international commitments to protect the lives of our citizens. That Coroners should examine whether deaths were preventable. That procedures should change.

    Now you see an Inquest examining a terrorist act to determine if it was preventable.

  2. 'Article 2' inquests
    8. Where employees (or other emanations) of the state potentially bear responsibility for loss of life (whether by their actions or omissions), the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)6 may be engaged. For Article 2 to be engaged, there must be reasonable grounds for thinking that the death may have resulted from a wrongful act on behalf of the state7. An example might be a death in custody, either in prison or under police detention.

    9. In such a case, the state is under an obligation to initiate an effective public investigation by an independent body. The House of Lords has ruled that, while a criminal investigation and prosecution may not discharge this obligation, an inquest is likely to do so. The inquest must, however, determine not only the identity of the deceased and when, where and how the death occurred, but also in what circumstances8. The limited ambit of a ‘standard’ inquest will not satisfy the obligation on the state.

    10. Whether the enhanced form of inquest will be required will depend on the precise circumstances of the particular case9. Only those inquests that are concerned with a possible breach of Article 2 by an agent of the state have this wider scope; other types of inquest can be more limited10. The Coroner’s decision will determine the questions s/he will need to address during the inquest and will have an impact on the assistance that you provide to the Coroner.
  3. BB,

    I understand your pain (I spent the night guarding the scene, we we're warned to listen out for anyone still trapped in the rubble) but sometimes mate, you just have to blame the bastards who planted the bomb.
  4. Knock knee, is that you?
  5. I think the question in all these cases is not 'could the atrocity have been prevented' but 'should the atrocity have been prevented' - there is a big difference.

    Could the 7/7 bombings have been prevented? With the benefit of hindsight, undoubtedly. If the security services had taken surveillance teams off other suspects, if they had interpreted intelligence differently, if they had risk-assessed differently, then no doubt the end result may have seen the culprits disrupted. But they didn't. And unless this enquiry shows clear evidence of a cataclysmic ****-up suggesting they undoubtedly should have prevented it, then the best we can do is just that; the best we can do.