Table-leg killers will not be charged.

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4359692.stm

The BBC said:
No charges for gun death officers

Two policemen will not be charged after shooting dead a man carrying a table leg they mistook for a sawn-off shotgun, the CPS has said.

Metropolitan Police officer Insp Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan were arrested in June in connection with the death of Harry Stanley, 46.

The father-of-three, originally from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was shot dead in Hackney, east London, in 1999.

The CPS said on Thursday there was insufficient evidence to charge them.



Mr Stanley was carrying a blue plastic bag containing a coffee table leg which had just been repaired when the officers opened fire as he walked home from the Alexandra pub.

Insp Sharman shot the father-of-three in the head, killing him instantly, while Pc Fagan also opened fire.



A second inquest in October 2004 returned a verdict of unlawful killing and the two Metropolitan Police officers were suspended from duty.

This led to an unofficial strike by members of SO19, the force's firearms unit.



The inquest verdict was quashed by the High Court in May of this year but an investigation by Surrey Police was launched resulting in the arrests.

The two officers were questioned on suspicion of murder, manslaughter, gross negligence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after new forensic evidence emerged.



But in a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "The CPS has concluded that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence.

"We have also concluded that the threat which they believed they faced made the use of fatal force reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them."



The Metropolitan Police's Assistant Commissioner Steve House said: "The legal processes examining this tragic incident has been unnecessarily protracted and the time this has taken can only have increased the strain for all involved.

"These officers were asked to make an instant life and death decision whilst carrying out the armed policing duties for which they had volunteered.

"We all readily accept the need for there to be full and proper legal scrutiny of these incidents when they happen. However justice is best served by a timely investigation and outcome."



The Independent Police Complaints Commission is due to make its ruling by the end of the year.

Stanley Case Timeline

Sep 99: Mr Stanley shot dead
Jun 02: Inquest returns open verdict
Apr 03: High Court orders new inquest
Oct 04: Inquest returns unlawful killing verdict
May 05: High Court quashes second inquest verdict
Jun 05: Two officers arrested
Oct 05: CPS decides to take no action against the officers



"We all readily accept the need for there to be full and proper legal scrutiny of these incidents when they happen. However justice is best served by a timely investigation and outcome."

Interesting that the Met's Assistant Commissioner believes justice has a time limit...
 
#2
Rule for one................not for the other...FFS

Paratrooper Lee Clegg was today sentenced to four years at Belfast Crown Court for the attempted unlawful wounding of a teenage joyrider shot dead in Belfast in 1990. Having already served four years, Clegg will not return to jail.
After a long legal battle the soldier was acquitted at a retrial in March of murdering 18-year-old Karen Reilly, who was a passenger in a stolen car. But he was again convicted of the attempted unlawful wounding with intent of the Martin Peake, the car driver who was also shot dead.

Peake, 17, was behind the wheel of the car when it raced through an army checkpoint in West Belfast in September 1990 and was fired on by Clegg's patrol.

At the original trial in 1993 Clegg was given life for the murder of Miss Reilly and four years for shooting Martin Peake.

Before launching a marathon series of appeals against his conviction Clegg spent close to four years in custody. He was finally cleared of the murder charge after a six-year battle through the courts and before 13 different judges.
 
#3
Certainly seems that way!!

Didn't the Paras attempt to put the blame on the car for hitting one of their blokes and breaking his leg though? Not too sure about that one, but it wouldn't have helped Cleggs position.
 
#4
chocolate_frog said:
Certainly seems that way!!

Didn't the Paras attempt to put the blame on the car for hitting one of their blokes and breaking his leg though? Not too sure about that one, but it wouldn't have helped Cleggs position.
Yeah they did.

Plus they werent justified in firing after the danger had passed. Thats when the fatality took place.
 
#7
The warm fuzzy feeling when I heard that that scrote was no longer slobbing round the streets causing no end of misery to ODF- your point is??
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#8
76mill said:
The warm fuzzy feeling when I heard that that scrote was no longer slobbing round the streets causing no end of misery to ODF- your point is??
Does this warm fuzzy feeling extend the fact that it appears to be acceptable for certain people to kill someone on the hearsay of a phonecall ?

The gentlemen involved in this incident may well have been under the impression that they faced a weapon, but this is not an isolated incident of armed police taking life with very little comeback.
 
#9
If the law and once again i'm being niave, can clear two policemen making life or death decisions facing a bloke with a blue carrier bag, would it not help our guys in the same way, who ARE facing people with guns. Or is this the double standards the thread is alluding to?
 
#10
Gary_Johnston said:
If the law and once again i'm being niave, can clear two policemen making life or death decisions facing a bloke with a blue carrier bag, would it not help our guys in the same way, who ARE facing people with guns. Or is this the double standards the thread is alluding to?
I agree its double standards, I have taken a few police forces through some range details in my past, I have seen first hand what they want to do when confronted and at that time, they DIDNT want to fire, policy was, talk them down...wear them down...last option was..only if you had a real threat did they blat off a couple of rounds and targets will fall when hit...BUT..in Lee Cleggs case he thought at that split second he or members of his brick were in danger and had a car come at them. Nobody in this thread or indeed anybody who has done some mileage on patrol in NI can argue that fact...decision..action...consequence....

In the case of the the two guys who opened fire on the guy with the bag (aka table leg)..SOP wasnt followed...weapons were made ready at pointed at said man with table leg and they both fired for some strange reason...anybody know why they did that?..Im sure they knew.... was it an ND? 1 round is an ND...5-10 rounds is a contact...curious to know views on this but..at the end of the day...Lee Clegg was shafted...SOMEONE had to be at fault...and he did time behind bars that he shouldnt have done..I would argue that anyone replying here..given that situation..would have doine the same thing..I would have!!
 
#12
Cutaway said:
76mill said:
The warm fuzzy feeling when I heard that that scrote was no longer slobbing round the streets causing no end of misery to ODF- your point is??
Does this warm fuzzy feeling extend the fact that it appears to be acceptable for certain people to kill someone on the hearsay of a phonecall ?

The gentlemen involved in this incident may well have been under the impression that they faced a weapon, but this is not an isolated incident of armed police taking life with very little comeback.
Eh? I suppose spending 6 years of you life waiting to go to jail for doing your job is little come back. Clegg was found guilty as was Barry Aindow (I think that how you spell his name). I never seen anyone campaign for him! The Paras on the Glen Road were with a RUC Constable who told an interesting tale about what went on that evening. Stanley was not shot in the back, he was presenting a threat to the two officers. Try researching a bit and not relying on the papers to give the whole story. Think about this ruling the next time you pop an insurgent in Iraq too, as the law of self defence is quite an important one for soldiers too.

:?
 
#13
The old old saying comes into play in these circumstances.

"I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six".

Just happy that I never had to make that call when I was wandering around with a gun..
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#14
SuperTrooper said:
Cutaway said:
76mill said:
The warm fuzzy feeling when I heard that that scrote was no longer slobbing round the streets causing no end of misery to ODF- your point is??
Does this warm fuzzy feeling extend the fact that it appears to be acceptable for certain people to kill someone on the hearsay of a phonecall ?

The gentlemen involved in this incident may well have been under the impression that they faced a weapon, but this is not an isolated incident of armed police taking life with very little comeback.
Eh? I suppose spending 6 years of you life waiting to go to jail for doing your job is little come back.
If the charge was murder then six years is not long. Six years of earning money, seeing your wife every day, watching your children grow.
Mr Stanley will be a long time dead, six more years alive might have meant a lot to him.

Were they waiting to go to prison ?
I doubt it, but if so they knew they were guilty and deserved it.

I didn't think that shooting unarmed people - regardless of how much of a 'scrote' they are - was considered part of the Met's job.

SuperTrooper said:
Stanley was not shot in the back, he was presenting a threat to the two officers.
I don't believe I said he was.


SuperTrooper said:
Try researching a bit and not relying on the papers to give the whole story.
I rely on the so-called newspapers for very little, they're much too partizan these days.
But thanks for the tip - I'll have to research in future rather than just guessing or making unfounded comments as I usually do.


SuperTrooper said:
Think about this ruling the next time you pop an insurgent in Iraq too, as the law of self defence is quite an important one for soldiers too.

:?
Fully agree with that, however soldiers are - or should be - acting under a different set of ROE than policemen.

Finally I don't believe for one minute that the officers involved started out with the intention to kill Mr Stanley, they had duff gen and were understandably nervous.
There has been a stuff up somewhere along the line, and it should be revealed where so that it may be remedied.
 
#15
I have every sympathy for Mr Stanley and his family and I don't believe he is in any way 'responsible' for his own demise. I can fully understand his families desire to have 'justice' (whatever that is) done.

The officers responded under the impression they were facing a man with a shotgun. He was challenged and I can only guess that, as I probably would, he did a 'WTF?' and in that unfortunate moment the officers felt they were under threat and opened fire.

Are they supposed to wait until he lets one off at them? I certainly wouldn't want to be in that 'seconds count' position with someone elses life (or my own) depending on what I did next.

At the end of the day only 3 people really know what happened and one of those is dead.

Just heard some muppet on radio 2 saying why didn't they just shoot him in the leg? FFS some of these people watch too much hollywood!!

I'm not convinced that the clegg comparison is valid in this case although I do agree he was shafted. Car driving away from you? whilst you might be exceedingly p1ssed off at what the scrote had done I really hope we don't get to the stage were joyriding deserves getting shot?
 
#16
Cutaway said:
If the charge was murder then six years is not long. Six years of earning money, seeing your wife every day, watching your children grow.
Mr Stanley will be a long time dead, six more years alive might have meant a lot to him.
So it's acceptable to hang people out to dry through numerous enquiries?

Cutaway said:
Were they waiting to go to prison ?
If you're charged with murder, what do you think?

Cutaway said:
I doubt it, but if so they knew they were guilty and deserved it.
Guilty? Based on what evidence? Even the CPS say there isn't enough. If Harry's family take out a private prosecution perhaps they will read the statements and the same evidence the inquests and CPS have read. Unfortunately for them, they will not rest until they have their pound of flesh and closure which is understanadable but is it right?

Cutaway said:
Finally I don't believe for one minute that the officers involved started out with the intention to kill Mr Stanley, they had duff gen and were understandably nervous.
There has been a stuff up somewhere along the line, and it should be revealed where so that it may be remedied.
Yep, charge the member of the public who made the call.
 
#17
scalieback said:
Cutaway said:
If the charge was murder then six years is not long. Six years of earning money, seeing your wife every day, watching your children grow.
Mr Stanley will be a long time dead, six more years alive might have meant a lot to him.
So it's acceptable to hang people out to dry through numerous enquiries?

Cutaway said:
Were they waiting to go to prison ?
If you're charged with murder, what do you think?

Cutaway said:
I doubt it, but if so they knew they were guilty and deserved it.
Guilty? Based on what evidence? Even the CPS say there isn't enough. If Harry's family take out a private prosecution perhaps they will read the statements and the same evidence the inquests and CPS have read. Unfortunately for them, they will not rest until they have their pound of flesh and closure which is understanadable but is it right?

Cutaway said:
Finally I don't believe for one minute that the officers involved started out with the intention to kill Mr Stanley, they had duff gen and were understandably nervous.
There has been a stuff up somewhere along the line, and it should be revealed where so that it may be remedied.
Yep, charge the member of the public who made the call.
Charge the member of the public with what?

I suppose we could...

Charge under the Accessories and Abbettors Act 1864.... (as an example)

And if that were the case, did the caller Aid, Abett, Counsel or Procure the commission of an offense (namely Murder under common law) by the two armed police?????

Like to see someone proving that one!!!!!!!
 
#18
mereminx said:
scalieback said:
Cutaway said:
If the charge was murder then six years is not long. Six years of earning money, seeing your wife every day, watching your children grow.
Mr Stanley will be a long time dead, six more years alive might have meant a lot to him.
So it's acceptable to hang people out to dry through numerous enquiries?

Cutaway said:
Were they waiting to go to prison ?
If you're charged with murder, what do you think?

Cutaway said:
I doubt it, but if so they knew they were guilty and deserved it.
Guilty? Based on what evidence? Even the CPS say there isn't enough. If Harry's family take out a private prosecution perhaps they will read the statements and the same evidence the inquests and CPS have read. Unfortunately for them, they will not rest until they have their pound of flesh and closure which is understanadable but is it right?

Cutaway said:
Finally I don't believe for one minute that the officers involved started out with the intention to kill Mr Stanley, they had duff gen and were understandably nervous.
There has been a stuff up somewhere along the line, and it should be revealed where so that it may be remedied.
Yep, charge the member of the public who made the call.
Charge the member of the public with what?

I suppose we could...

Charge under the Accessories and Abbettors Act 1864.... (as an example)

And if that were the case, did the caller Aid, Abett, Counsel or Procure the commission of an offense (namely Murder under common law) by the two armed police?????

Like to see someone proving that one!!!!!!!
Exactly.
Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 provides the mode of trial for persons who aid, abet, counsel or procure any indictable offence. It states:

8 Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of [any indictable offence] whether the same be [an offence] at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender .
Charge them with possession of an offensive face in a built up area! Why should they escape punishment if the witches are out for the peelers?

Talking about obscure legislation, I love the town Police Clauses act 1847 as it's still an offence beating your carpet in the street (unless it's a doormat before 8am)! Obviously, there's other sorts of beating that isn't allowed as well :wink:
 
#19
It's very unfortunate that these two plod killed Stanley, however, they were acting on information that he was armed and as I understand it, when challenged, Stanley turned and brandished the chairleg in such a way that they assumed it was a weapon being pointed at them. If I found myself in such a position, I'd have shot him too. Split second decisions are by their nature arbitrary and leave no room for fluffy "what if" agonising. The plod made the wrong decision due to incorrect information. I believe that the decision they made was in good faith and understandable, and the CPS has made the correct choice in deciding not to prosecute.

The fact that this has been hanging over the two plod for six years is also very unfortunate, but at least no one apart from the tinfoil hat wearers can accuse the Police, CPS and the Courts of initiating a cover-up!

As for double standards ref Police and Army shootings, just because some soldiers have been shafted in the past, that doesn't mean that Police should be shafted as well. I'd rather see nobody getting shafted; wouldn't you?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#20
scalieback said:
Cutaway said:
If the charge was murder then six years is not long. Six years of earning money, seeing your wife every day, watching your children grow.
Mr Stanley will be a long time dead, six more years alive might have meant a lot to him.
So it's acceptable to hang people out to dry through numerous enquiries?
I'm not sure if you mean they've been used as a scapegoat or that there shouldn't have been so many enquiries.
Why were there so many enquiries ? Because the family needed someone to blame or witnesses chirping up too late ?
It's understandable that because this sort of incident will put the police in a bad light for a certain amount of time, that there will be some damage limitation by the force.
It is in the interests of all parties to reach the truth as rapidly as possible, though this may lead to evidence being overlooked early on coming to light later .

scalieback said:
Cutaway said:
Were they waiting to go to prison ?
If you're charged with murder, what do you think?
If I knew that I was innocent of a charge and the evidence backed me up, I wouldn't be waiting to go to prison I'd be waiting to be exonerated.

scalieback said:
Cutaway said:
I doubt it, but if so they knew they were guilty and deserved it.
Guilty? Based on what evidence?
"...if so they knew they were guilty..."
See above.

scalieback said:
Even the CPS say there isn't enough. If Harry's family take out a private prosecution perhaps they will read the statements and the same evidence the inquests and CPS have read. Unfortunately for them, they will not rest until they have their pound of flesh and closure which is understanadable but is it right?
No, scapegoating is never right.
If the family had access to all the evidence earlier these extra inquiries might never have been necessary.

scalieback said:
Cutaway said:
Finally I don't believe for one minute that the officers involved started out with the intention to kill Mr Stanley, they had duff gen and were understandably nervous.
There has been a stuff up somewhere along the line, and it should be revealed where so that it may be remedied.
Yep, charge the member of the public who made the call.
Plus perhaps those that did not ensure the gen was passed on quickly and accurately ?
The remedy does not necessarily lie in locking someone up, but in ensuring that it does not happen again.
As I said, I find it unbelieveable that the two offrs deliberately set out to off Mr Stanley, this has been a collection of fcukups which ended in a man's death.
That he may have been a 'scrote' or just plain drunk doesn't enter into the matter.
The police are still the good guys and must be seen to be so.
 

Similar threads

Top