Christopher Kapessa

5 replies

Tal45 · 07/06/2021 08:47

I was just reading on the BBC about the handling of Christopher's death - first it was found by the police that he slipped into a river and died. After complaints about it's handling of the case it was found he was pushed by another boy - but there was no intention to prosecute him as it wasn't in the public interest?? and might damage his future??

To me this sounds like rape cases I've read about (in America particularly) where they don't prosecute the 'upstanding white young man' because he could be someone very important in the future don't you know.

I just don't see how this is ok?? Or am I missing something here?

OP posts:

Disfordarkchocolate · 07/06/2021 13:50

It was my thought too but we are still short on details. His poor parents.

julie81 · 07/06/2021 16:04

I have followed this from the beginning. Quite a bit over the year on Welsh news but not Uk. There is a a documentary tonight on bbc wales I think. It is heartbreaking as his mother speaks with so much dignity.

prh47bridge · 08/06/2021 08:09

The facts as we know them are that Christopher Kapessa went to the river, put on swimming trunks, removed his top, glasses and footwear and, according to some of the group with him, said that he really wanted to jump in. He told some of the group that he could not swim and they told him not to jump in. The information available does not make it clear whether the boy who pushed him knew that he could not swim.

The question the CPS has to consider is whether it is in the public interest to prosecute a 14-year-old boy who pushed another boy into the river as a prank. If there was reason to believe that there was malicious intent or that there was a racial element in what happened, I would expect him to be prosecuted. But young teenage boys pushing their friends into water is not uncommon, particularly where, as in this case, the person pushed has clearly prepared to go in the water. Do we really want to criminalise this boy because, on this occasion, there were tragic consequences?

As the CPS say, the primary purpose of the youth justice system is to prevent re-offending. There appears to be no reason to believe that the boy in this case will commit further offences.

I understand the distress of Christopher Kapessa's family. They may be right that there is institutional racism involved in the decision by the CPS, but I'm not seeing it on the information we have. It seems like a perfectly normal charging decision to me. If Christopher Kapessa had been white, I would still have expected the same decision.

Original poster

Tal45 · 08/06/2021 20:36

I just don't think you can push someone in a river as a prank, that's not funny it's really dangerous and not something any of the teens I know would think was ok. Even a good swimmer could bang their head. I disagree and think this whole thing doesn't add up - why did he get ready to go in the water if he couldn't swim? Why would he go in alone? Or if there were others in there why didn't anyone help him? If you pushed someone in and saw they were in trouble wouldn't you try to help them? this should be looked into properly IMO, it all sounds like the handling of it has been a bit of a joke and the kids have had lots of time to concoct a story.

OP posts:

prh47bridge · 08/06/2021 23:05

@Tal45

It was, and is, common among teens who are messing around near water that they push each other in. As someone who has spent much of his adult life doing voluntary work with teens, I have known many teens who did this (and, indeed, some young men).

You may think it doesn't add up but he was recovered wearing only swimming trunks and it is agreed they were his swimming trunks. I can't swim but I sometimes get ready to go in the water. No-one suggested he went in alone. He said he wanted to jump but those of his friends who knew he couldn't swim told him not to. The others did try to help him, as did the boy who pushed him in, but they weren't able to save him. It has been looked into properly and the police have sent a file to the CPS showing adequate evidence to mean that, if the boy who pushed Christopher was prosecuted, there is a good chance he would end up with a manslaughter conviction.

The police are very good at sniffing out concocted stories. It isn't too difficult. They tend to be too detailed and too consistent (i.e. the witnesses all say the same thing). There were 16 young people there. If this was a story, they would all have to agree, they would all have to stick to it and they would have to concoct something with sufficient variation from person to person to be convincing.

I would also point out that the purpose of a concocted story would be to hide the offence. If this was a concocted story (which I do not believe), it fails to hide the offence. The one thing you would want to cover up is that Christopher was pushed in, but witnesses agree that is what happened. That is common assault which resulted in Christopher's death, which therefore meets the definition of manslaughter.

You are, of course, entitled to the view that the boy who pushed Christopher into the water should be prosecuted. I, however, do not think it is a good idea to criminalise a 14-year-old for the kind of prank carried out by many boys of that age just because, on this occasion, the prank had tragic consequences. My view may change if more facts emerge but, on the information that has been published so far, I agree with the CPS that it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

Flip

Swipe left for the next trending thread