Chris Kaba

[RaceWithChyna]

The police officer who shot Chris Kaba has finally been charged with murder. It took a while after investigations had to be held but I’m glad the CPS decided to charge the anonymous police officer.

Before people start, yes he’d been in jail. Yes, he’d apparently drove towards officers at an attempt to get away. None of this means he deserved to be killed with an immediate head shot. To make matters worse, he wasn’t even the person they were after. They only realised it was someone else after the fact that he was dead.

I hope the family get the justice that they deserve.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-66865099.amp

The point is this may have been an error of judgment in an extremely stressful job. If mistakes happen in any job we have means of policing this, learning from mistakes and if there is negligence possibly pursue disciplinary action.

The error the police officer made in my mind certainly does not make him a murderer in the way Wayne Couzens, Lucy Letby, Rose West are murderers. The public I believe would not want a criminal charge like this levelled at a member of our emergency services in the performance of duty and the law needs to be changed in future to reflect this. The officer being discussed is not a heinous criminal but simply someone who had to make a split second decision as part of his duty.

We should not have a system that levels the same crime against this officer as it does Peter Sutcliffe. Surely that is not right?

@mids2019 You are judging this case without knowing the evidence. The CPS and investigating officers clearly believe there is enough evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that this goes way beyond a mistake or negligence. If they believed the evidence showed this was an officer making a split-second decision as part of his duty, he would not be facing a murder charge.

The CPS does NOT use "beyond reasonable doubt" to decide charges at all. They consider whether or not there's a realistic prospect of a conviction which is a different test.

Crucially, their decision to charge doesn't mean they believe the defendant is guilty. They make no judgement on that.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims-guide/victims-guide-how-we-make-decision-what-do-your-case#:~:text=To%20answer%20this%20question%2C%20they,the%20time%20of%20the%20offence.

IIRC, there was a case where an officer was charged with murder after a shooting, but acquitted by a jury.

In the case of Dalian Atkinson (non-shooting), Benjamin Monk was charged with murder, acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter.

CPS charge isn't a judgement. Its a "we believe there's a case to answer here". Nor does it necessarily mean the available evidence definitely supports the charge. At the end of the day, the CPS doesn't decide to charge based on "beyond reasonable doubt" at all...

The CPS does NOT use "beyond reasonable doubt" to decide charges at all. They consider whether or not there's a realistic prospect of a conviction which is a different test.

But a conviction is based on a jury finding the defendant guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So surely that is the test: does the CPS observe enough evidence to take to court and secure such a judgement from the jury. That's all @prh47bridge was saying, surely?

We don't know what there is amongst the evidence taken to the CPS to have brought them to the decision that there is a case to be judged beyond an accident / wring decision in the heat of the moment. And we won't know until the trial so we can't come to any conclusions.

No, the CPS uses a completely different test to the one a judge led jury uses. The two should not be confused.

The link and screenshot makes it clear the CPS uses "is there a realistic prospect of conviction?" and "is the prosecution in the public interest?" when deciding charges.

A very different test to the "is the defendant guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt?".

It's NOT uncommon for juries to acquit where CPS believes there's a realistic prospect of conviction. Clearly, a realistic prospect doesn't mean a definite or guaranteed conviction.

The question for the CPS is whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. For them to say yes to that question, they must believe they have enough evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt (which is what I said). If they don't believe they have enough evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, they would not prosecute.

It does not, of course, mean they are correct. That is for the jury to decide. But they would not bring a case if they did not believe they had enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

There's no reasonable doubt with CPS though.

Realistic prospect of conviction means 50% chance or more. Given that there's bodycam (evidential stage) and it's in the public interest, it makes sense that it's going to trial.

There is no beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage. The fact that he's been charged definitely doesn't mean it's murder/manslaughter. The trial is what will prove or disprove that

Absolutely NOT since the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is ONLY for juries!

The CPS can ONLY charge on two tests:

1. Realistic prospect of conviction
2. Public Interest

Now, a realistic prospect of conviction does NOT mean "beyond reasonable doubt" at all! Likewise, "I see what I eat" DOESN’T mean the same thing as "I eat what I see"!

@prh47bridge

This will come out at the tr I am but I am intrigued to know what sequence of events would lead to an armed police officer called to a location with at least some inclination arms were a requirement murdering someone. Was there some malign pre determination to this? Was the officer repeatedly told not to shoot and he ignored orders?

With the criterion being in the public interest how is it in the public interest to pursue this? Either (a) the defendant is found not guilty and the officer and his family are put through a needless ordeal (with waste of public money) or (b) the defendant is found guilty of murder and as I said previously do we really feel a crime of murder with all it connotations be committed by an armed police officer in the call of duty in a scenario where arms were thought to be necessary by a command centre?

Also unless the jury has a significant number of people who have prejudice against the police are present (or at least a lot view) then I think a convo tion will be extremely hard to get. Most jurors would have respect for upholding law and those whose duty it is and so it would take a very good case for a jury to convict a serving officer of possibly the worst crime possible while on duty. You could also argue that the anxiety placed amongst firearms officers that they may be prosecuted through the course of their careers will make them less effective and hence to some extent reduce public protection.

trial

I suggest you take a logic course.

To get a conviction, the CPS need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. It therefore follows that, in order to have a realistic prospect of conviction, they must believe they have the evidence to prove that. It does not mean they are right. That is indeed only for the jury to decide. But, if the CPS don't think they have the evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, they won't prosecute as there is no realistic prospect of conviction.

A police officer can only open fire if they honestly believe that it is necessary to protect themselves, their colleagues, or the public. It does not matter if that belief is mistaken - as long as it is honestly held the officer is not committing a criminal offence. To get a conviction in this case, the prosecution needs to convince the jury that the officer concerned knew that opening fire was not necessary to protect anyone but chose to use deadly force anyway.

At some point it has been decided by someone, that the defence to murder of self defence does not apply in this case. Or that it is unlikely to succeed ??

Curiously a quick google seems to fail to return the inquest verdict, suggesting it's not be held yet ?

A verdict of unlawful killing would be a prelude to a possible murder charge.

Presumably a lawful killing incorporates the fact of self defence ?

The inquest was adjourned to allow the IOPC to carry out its investigation.

Presumably that investigation has been concluded, now a court case is active ?

I'm not the brightest bunny, admittedly. But can't an inquest return a verdict of lawful or unlawful killing (among others) ?

It would be a bit odd if the officer were convicted of murder, and the inquest subsequently delivered a verdict of lawful killing.

Or vice versa.

Or does the inquest have to return a verdict that agrees with the criminal case verdict ?

You've blurred and confused the two very different processes and fallen into the Non-sequitur Fallacy.

It really doesn't follow that the CPS charge anyone on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". This is proven by the CPS' own website and description of the actual process followed.

A "realistic prospect of conviction" is all that is required to charge. This means "more likely than not".

Under no legal definition or circumstance does "beyond reasonable doubt" mean "more likely than not"!

Therefore, logically, the decision to charge doesn't mean there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict. That's means it's a non-sequitur fallacy you're using. 🤷‍♂️

In this case, the inquest has to be put on the back-burner by the IOPC criminal investigation.

That has obviously now concluded and a criminal trial is scheduled for next year. An inquest in the meantime will not proceed.

Inquests can return a verdict of lawful and unlawful killing, yes.

There is a case where officer W80 was cleared of murder by an inquest, I think. But subjected to a gross misconduct proceeding despite this. That case went to the Supreme Court.

If nothing else this thread shows that the legal process is very complicated and therefore almost guaranteed to confuse even the best and brightest minds.

Which is all very well. But then it really shouldn't be any surprise if #wingnut237 on InstaFace sees stitch ups and conspiracies everywhere.

No, I have not. You are failing to see that the two overlap.

No, I am not using a non-sequitor fallacy. You are making a logical jump that does not follow. I have not said at any point that the decision to charge means the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. That is not for the CPS to decide. That is for the jury.

In simple steps...

To charge, there must be a realistic prospect of conviction.

To get a conviction, the prosecution must convince the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

We can therefore rephrase the charging standard as there must be a realistic prospect of convincing the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, unless the prosecution has evidence that they believe shows beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, there is no realistic prospect of conviction.

They may be wrong. They may have assessed the evidence incorrectly. There may be evidence of which the prosecution is not aware. Their evidence may fall apart in court.

You are absolutely right that the decision to charge does not mean the evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't. That is for the jury to decide. But that isn't what I said.

A decision to charge does mean the prosecution believe they have evidence that will prove to the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is what I said.

Yes, the CPS has clearly looked at the evidence available and believe that they can prove to the jury that the officer concerned did not honestly believe he was acting in self-defence, or to protect his colleagues or members of the public.

We can therefore rephrase the charging standard as there must be a realistic prospect of convincing the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

No, it's anything above 50% chance, that's a 'realistic prospect'

Not strong prospect, not certainty.

Realistic, meaning somebody could be convicted and that there is a case to argue.

In a case like this where somebody acts In a split second, and a gun is discharged, there will definitely be various interpretations on the reasonable course of action.

@prh47bridge I can clearly see where you are coming from.

the cps has to decide if they have a "reasonable chance of conviction". The definition of what constitutes a reasonable chance, must, logically be based on what a jury may think/believe which must brings the cps to the logical conclusion that, they have to guess ( based on case law ?) The percentage of people who will consider that a case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I did not say strong prospect or certainty. I said realistic prospect.

If you want me to type it out in full, the prosecution must believe it has evidence that gives it a greater than 50% chance of proving to the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, there may well be various interpretations. The prosecution believe that they have enough evidence to mean they have a good chance of convincing a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the officer concerned was not acting in self-defence, or to protect his colleagues or members of the public. That may mean this was not a split-second decision. We don't know. We haven't seen the evidence.

Yes, the CPS has clearly looked at the evidence available and believe that they can prove to the jury that the officer concerned did not honestly believe he was acting in self-defence, or to protect his colleagues or members of the public.

Just to counter any accusations of being anti police, my view is to give every leeway to an officer who shoots someone in a belief of defending the public. For example to shoot an armed suspect in the back (i.e running away) to prevent them harming the public. However the moment that suspect stops and drops their weapon and present no danger to the public, there is no excuse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68441013

Well no surprises here.

Exactly as we knew/suspected.