xford Law Prof alarmed at "police’s Mossad-style execution" of innocent ’suspect’
by : John Gardner
Tuesday July 26, 2005 - 19:03
John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School.
Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.
Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:
(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly  2 QB 414.
(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.
(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg  1 A.C. 482.
(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!
(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.
(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg  1 A.C. 482.
(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.
(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn’t mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.
Proposed new anti-terrorist offences: The one that has been variously labelled as ’condoning’ or ’glorifying’ or ’indirectly inciting’ terrorism gives cause for concern. It is already an offence to incite another person to commit an act of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 s59). In which respects, we may wonder, is the scope of this offence to be extended? The word ’indirect’ suggests that they mean to catch those who incite the s59 inciter. But under general doctrines of English criminal law it is already an offence to incite the s59 inciter. So one suspects some other extension of the existing offence is being cooked up. Is the plan to criminalise the mere defence or endorsement of a terrorist act? If so we are in for trouble. Terrorism in English law is defined to cover all modes of political violence, however trifling. Are academics and commentators no longer to be permitted to defend any political violence? Is Ted Honderich’s Violence for Equality, or Peter Singer’s Democracy and Disobedience, to be put on the banned books list? The only thing protecting these books at the moment is that, in the eyes of the law, an argued endorsement is not an incitement. The thought that the government may be thinking of changing this should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who still has a spine (damn few).
Lord Hoffman in A v Home Secretary  2 WLR 87: ’The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws like these.’ Quite right. Some extra risk of being blown up by fanatics on the way to work is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society. Let’s make sure we keep it that way.
Seattle Police Officers Begin New Anti-Terror Training
... by the same people who taught the London cops how to shoot an innocent Brazilian man 8 times while he was pinned to the ground.
The American Republic Manifestum VS The Koran
Tuesday 2 - 14:57by William Morgan
Sanders Will Win Because Empire Can Live With It
Friday 22 - 16:04by Daniel Patrick Welch
President Obama supports The American Republic Manifestum
Tuesday 19 - 16:42by William Morgan
Tahrir square in Europe
Thursday 14 - 19:31
New year, old struggles: the strike for the collective agreement in the logistic
Thursday 14 - 12:24by Clash City Workers
March against drillings in the Mediterranean Sea in Licata
Monday 11 - 14:43by InfoAut
War Fraud: The Great Lies Behind Imperial Warfare in the 21st Century
Monday 11 - 11:12by Mark Taliano
South Africa : “We need a new beginning”
Sunday 10 - 17:21by md
Oligarchic Paternalism: Why your vote won’t bring Peace in the Middle East
Sunday 10 - 00:11by Daniel Patrick Welch
Thursday 7 - 21:49by JOHN CHUCKMAN
AMERICA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A HOAX
Sunday 3 - 06:38by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Merry Fucking Christmas: there is no holiday from racist police state USA
Tuesday 29 - 00:17by Daniel Patrick Welch
Lichtenstein Investigated Yves Bouvier
Saturday 19 - 17:37by Barney Shulz
A Nurturing Society vs. Socialism
Friday 18 - 14:44by William John Cox
DONALD TRUMP IS ELECTABLE AS PRESIDENT, BUT…
Tuesday 15 - 19:24by JOHN CHUCKMAN
BRITAIN’S DAVID CAMERON WANTS TO USE BOMBS TO PROSPECT FOR GOLD IN SYRIA
Tuesday 1 - 13:39by JOHN CHUCKMAN
IN THE WAKE OF HORROR
Saturday 28 - 21:14by JACK RANDOM
Paris: One step beyond in the systemic chaos
Monday 23 - 11:11by InfoAut
FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH IN PARIS AND THE UGLY TRUTH OF STATE TERROR
Thursday 19 - 20:08by JOHN CHUCKMAN
AFTER THE ATTACKS
Tuesday 17 - 23:07by CAPJPO-EuroPalestine
Terrorism victims file $3.4bn lawsuit against Bnp Paribas, violating sanctions
Sunday 15 - 00:18by Kevin Dugan
Slavery, corruption... Larsen & Toubro and Qatar have so much in common
Thursday 12 - 17:16by Robert Scott
Advisers Lock Horns in Yves Bouvier Art Fraud Battle
Thursday 15 - 18:04by GraemeListing72
Smashing the Abbas icon of Palestinian non – violence
Wednesday 14 - 11:42by Nicola Nasser
More Scud than BUK: Despite Fiery Rhetoric, West Beats Strategic Retreat on MH17
Tuesday 13 - 22:28by Daniel Patrick Welch
The Pornography of Hatred
Friday 9 - 19:45by William John Cox
You Mad, Bro? US resopnse to Russia’s Syria action is off the charts
Wednesday 7 - 20:07by Daniel Patrick Welch
Pope’s address to Bishops raises larger questions, contradictions in visit to US
Friday 25 - 14:04by Daniel Patrick Welch
Culture as merchandise, thanks to recent copyright reform
Monday 21 - 11:18by Isabel Adams
BIG DEMO IN PARIS ON SATURDAY FOR THE RIGHT OF RETURN FOR PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
Wednesday 16 - 18:45by CAPJPO-EuroPalestine
What Young Angolans Can Learn from Mirco Martins
Tuesday 15 - 23:52
Imperial arrogance spews from US mouthpieces—"warning" Russia on Ukraine, Syria
Tuesday 15 - 21:06by Daniel Patrick Welch
Wars of Opportunity: West and its gulf allies just won’t stop
Saturday 12 - 20:46by Daniel Patrick Welch
US claims Russia ’destabilizing Syria’ stand the truth on its head
Wednesday 9 - 23:46by Daniel Patrick Welch
AMERICA’S "JUSTICE" SYSTEM IS A LIE
Saturday 29 - 03:41by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Mirco Martins helping Angola children with education foundation
Monday 24 - 23:13
Armed demonstrators protest Sandra Bland arrest, death
Friday 14 - 17:04by seattletimes
San Quintín Valley: From labor abuse to labor mobilization
Thursday 13 - 02:34by Guillermo Castillo
THE COUNTER-REFORM OF MICHOACÁN’S INDIGENOUS UNIVERSITY (1)
Wednesday 12 - 22:07
Rumored Sale of Banque Pasche to Banque Havilland
Monday 10 - 17:17by Bolton Rease