SPOILERS AHEAD FOR THE TELEVISION SERIES WANDAVISION
*
*
*
The recent Marvel and Disney-Plus series Wandavision was a brilliant – almost perfect – piece of television.
In particular it played to the strengths of a story told in periodic instalments, while playing with and exploiting the conventions, techniques and lore of other great television series over seventy years.
But there was part of the story – a misdirection – which makes me think of the current blame games about Brexit.
You may know this misdirection by a merry little song.
That it was ‘Agatha All Along’.
*
At the point of the series we are introduced to this lovely ditty, there is plausibility to it all being down to the rival witch Agatha.
And indeed: for many her theatrical wink is the compelling tell.
It must have been Agatha all along.
*
Except, of course, it was not Agatha all along.
For although Agatha had a certain impact on the plot and the characters, the real causes of the predicament as set out in Wandavision are elsewhere.
The problems instead flow from deeper dislocations, and from distortions of reality, and from the limits of magical thinking.
A false – and ultimately flimsy – world is created, but it is unsustainable and so it comes crashing down.
Happy nostalgic images of the 1950s – and of other decades – are ultimately mere make-believe constructs.
Sound familiar?
*
The state of Brexit at the moment is such that it is understandable that those who urged the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union at such speed and with no planning are looking to blame others.
But it is difficult to blame Remainers.
Those blaming Remainers for the shape of Brexit forget that Remainers were not even capable of winning a referendum.
Remainers also had a real opportunity to delay Brexit – or at least have a further referendum – in the the months before the December 2019 general election – and they were not even capable of accomplishing that either.
*
At each important point of Brexit – and especially in the crucial few months after the referendum result – the government and its political and media supporters prioritised speed and lack of substance over everything else.
Hardly a thought was employed as to the implications of ‘red lines’.
And once there was an agreement text, the race was on to ‘get Brexit done’ as swiftly as possible, with no proper consideration as to what was being agreed.
As I have averred over at Twitter, the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Irish protocol were the result of five distinct political steps taken by the prime minister Boris Johnson.
The shape and manner of Brexit has many causes – but the overriding ones are specific political decisions made by pro-Brexit governments and parliaments when they had majorities in the house of commons – before June 2017 and after December 2019.
*
One cannot sensibly hold that Remainers can be held primarily responsible for anything to do with Brexit – other than complacency before the June 2016 referendum and ineptitude before the December 2019 general election.
Of course, there will be Remainer ‘leaders’ – professors and lords and QCs – who like Agatha may tweet theatrical winks to the camera.
And this may in turn provoke Brexit supporters into singing that it was ‘Remainers all along’.
But the tune does not make it true.
It was Brexiters all along.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Another evening of disturbances in Northern Ireland.
And so another round of ‘appeals for calm’.
Of course: such a call is the responsible thing to do – and nothing in this post should be taken to gainsay this.
But do such appeals actually work?
Does this – almost ritualistic – reflexive speech act ever have the intended effect?
And if so, how?
*
A cynic may contest that one function of ‘appealing for calm’ is to just give something ‘community leaders’ something to say and do – a gesture as empty and meaningless as ‘thoughts and prayers’.
As such there could almost be a circular definition – a ‘community leader’ is the person who ‘appeals for calm’, and ‘appealing for calm’, is what a ‘community leader’ does – thereby a ‘community leader appealing for calm’ is almost a tautology.
*
But such cynicism may be misplaced, for there appear to be many examples of appeals for calm that have had efficacy:
When Nelson Mandela appealed for calm after Chris Hani was killed. He could easily have used it to help overthrow the government violently and bring himself to power, instead he was statesman-like and not only gained power but a legendary status.
Bobby Kennedy’s speech after the assassination of Martin Luther King has been credited with keeping Indianapolis relatively calm. https://t.co/gd0yjWUHpb
So there are historical instances where the ‘appeal for calm’ seems to have had the intended political and social effect – though of course there may be other features present.
But the ‘appeal for calm’ has another important function.
And this is that it will be significant when the expected speech act is not made by a particular individual.
Here we have an example from just three months ago:
Isn't the counterfactual important? Look at what happened when Trump refused to condemn Capitol riots etc
As so often with language and politics, it can be more important when certain words and phrases are not used than when they are.
This is true not only for formal texts such as laws, but also for rhetorical acts in certain situations.
An ‘appeal for calm’ thereby might or might not work – but a failure or obvious refusal to ‘appeal for calm’ can have unwelcome consequences.
Appealing for calm is therefore an important piece of political behaviour – both for what it can achieve and also for what may happen if the appeal is not made.
Words matter, but so does silence.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Over at the American site National Review there is a call – in all seriousness – for the franchise to be restricted.
*
(‘Don’t give oxygen to such things,’ demand those unaware that ‘not giving oxygen’ to Trumpism and Brexit did nothing to stop the rise of such notions – but this is a law and policy blog and it exists to offer comment on such developments.)
*
The contention at the National Review moves from the fact that as there are certain restrictions on voters – for example, felons – to urging that there should be other restrictions.
The entire piece is a practical exercise in political sophistry.
Yet it was commissioned for and published on a well-known website.
It is an attempt to re-open debates that one would have thought were long settled.
It is nothing less than an effort to re-impose Jim Crow type voting restrictions.
It is a dangerous development.
*
This law and policy blog is written from a liberal rather than a democratic perspective.
That is say that there are certain things – such as fundamental human rights – that should not be subject to votes.
Even if a majority of people supported the torture of one human being, that torture would still be absolutely wrong.
Such a liberal perspective is alert to and wary of the consequences of populism and demagogues and majoritarianism.
Democracy can be illiberal – and just because a thing has a democratic mandate, it would not make a thing that is fundamentally illiberal right and proper.
But.
When things are subject to democratic oversight and control, then the votes should be equal and the franchise as universal as possible, and there should not be ‘super-voters’ with more democratic power than others.
In the United Kingdom, it actually used to be the case that such privileged voters did exist – those with more of a ‘stake’ in the community would/should have a better chance of a vote – and these were bog-standard arguments in the lead up to the 1832 reform act.
In the United States, such arguments were used to in effect disenfranchise slaves and those descended from slaves.
The anti-democratic arguments now being put forward have not really been put forward so earnestly and with such force since the 1800s.
It is almost as if the ‘march of democracy’ has not only halted but is now retreating – a corrective to the simple notion of linear political progress.
Authoritarianism and anti-democracy, like illiberalism, has never really gone away – it just was not so prominent for a while, at least in the United Kingdom – making liberals and progressives complacent.
Perhaps such anti-democratic views are just a blip – and we will carry on heading towards the right side of history.
Or perhaps there is no natural line of political progression – and every generation has to win the arguments for liberalism and democracy afresh.
The post-2016 anti-democratic, illiberal turn is not over yet.
Brace, brace.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Anyone who knows and cares about the criminal justice system in England and Wales knows that the system is collapsing – and that the word ‘system’ is itself hardly still applicable.
On the face of it, however, this presents a paradox.
For we have a government – with loud and shouty political and media supporters – committed to ‘Law and Order!’.
You would think that a government with such a stated priority would ensure that the substance of policy would have some correspondence to the rhetoric of its politics.
You would be wrong.
For, as this blog has averred elsewhere, there is a distinction – a dislocation – between the politics and the actuality of the criminal justice system.
It is easy for a politician to get claps and cheers with demands for ‘tougher penalties’ and ‘crackdowns on crime’!
Time-poor political reporters will type easily about ‘new laws’ and ‘longer sentences’ and so on.
And voters will nod-along, as they are fooled into thinking some useful thing is being done.
But there is no point having tougher and tougher penalties, and longer and longer sentences, and more and more laws, if the criminal justice system itself is not working.
As the former attorney general Dominic Grieve sets out in this article, the reality is that the system is halting and crashing.
Part of the problem is lack of cash – and for the the reasons Grieve submits.
But another part of the problem is a lack of policy seriousness – an assumption that it ultimately does matter that the criminal justice system comprises a motley of inadequate court buildings, demoralised staff, badly let contracts, ancient IT systems, health and safety horrors, a general lack of safety for everyone involved, and a general drift of the system towards discharging greater re-offending, and not less.
If you invited a demon to devise the worst possible state of affairs in the criminal justice system the current situation is pretty much what you would get.
But: ‘new laws’ and ‘longer sentences’ and ‘tougher penalties’ and ‘crackdowns on crime’!
Slogans that are like loose gear sticks and brakes, not attached to any other part of the vehicle.
Perhaps the only consolation is that such an absolute system failure tells against England and Wales becoming, in practice, an authoritarian state.
But it is not only authoritarian states that need a functioning criminal justice system – modern liberal democracies need working criminal justice systems too.
And so we have a system that should satisfy nobody – other than of course, dishonest purveyors of easy criminal justice solutions: fraudsters of modern politics.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Restoring the palace of Westminster is proving to be rather expensive.
Exc: A leaked letter from the outgoing Lords Speaker warns that remaining in the Palace of Westminster during renovation would “import an extraordinary level of risk, take decades longer and cost far more”https://t.co/4hLgj6VBer
This news prompts a thought about what is – actually – a parliament.
I happen to be a (non-militant) atheist but I have friends who are Christians who will say that a church is not a building but the people – and that a church can exists just as readily in people’s houses, or in the street, or over an internet zoom call.
A similar approach can be adopted to parliament.
The great historian of the Stuart period Conrad Russell averred that the parliaments of the seventeenth century were an event not an institution.
And this goes to the word itself – a parliament is where people, well parley.
As such, it can take place anywhere – and indeed parliaments have been held away from Westminster.
And parliaments have been held in different parts of Westminster.
It is only by sheer familiarity that we identify a parliament with a particular building.
But there is no constitutional reason why parliament has to sit in Westminster.
For example, take for example the preamble of an act of parliament:
‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—’
There is nothing in that introductory text which provides that the lords and the commons have to be sitting and voting in parliament.
(And, if you read the text carefully, you will also see there is nothing that says peers and commons need to have voted separately on the bill.)
So, just like a church, there is nothing which would ultimately stop a parliament meeting just as readily in people’s houses, or in the street, or over an internet zoom call.
It is, however, a measure of the sheer pressure of those dollops of Victorian nostalgia and surviving procedure on our political imagination that it is almost impossible to conceive of a parliament sitting anywhere else than that neo-gothic pile just by the Thames.
And it certainly seems beyond the political imagination of some members of parliament to conceive of their constitutional role and duties being capable of performance and discharge other than in the palace of Westminster.
Four hundred years later, it has to be be conceded that parliament now is an institution rather than just an event – but it still an institution that can manifest in a number of places and in a number of ways.
And not just in the palace of Westminster.
That so few parliamentarians can see that parliament is what one does, rather than where one is, is a cost to the rest of us of more than twelve billion pounds.
It is the cost of our parliamentarians confusing what they do for where they are.
If parliamentarians took parliament seriously, it would not matter where the parliament sat, as long as it could perform its role and discharge its duties.
Our constitution is in great part a creaking Victorian dysfunctional monstrosity – there is no need for parliamentarians to meet in one too.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
The United Kingdom ceased to be a member of the European Union over fourteen months ago, and the transition arrangements came to an end on 31st December 2020.
Regardless of whether you take the fourteen-month or the four-month period as the true duration so far of Brexit, what is not coming into view is the shape of the future relationship.
My own view – which is pretty much a minority view, as it has been since the dawn of Brexit – is that the United Kingdom and European Union would be best having a close association agreement, where the the legal form would be that the United Kingdom was not a member of the European Union but the substance would be that we would continue to be part of the single market and the customs union.
Issues of representation, consultation and mutual influence would be dealt with by dedicated EU+UK institutions – and such consensual and sustainable institutions would be the answer to the charge that the European Union would be imposing law and policy on an independent United Kingdom.
But this middle way position is still not in sight, and many still see the Brexit debate in the leave/remain binary.
As far as I am aware, no front-rank politician has yet set out a positive vision of the institutional, law and policy framework of the relationship of a post-Brexit United Kingdom and the European Union.
The government is still in its toy-room of gesture politics.
The official opposition is silent.
Those in favour of the United Kingdom becoming a member (again) of the European Union are still – wrongly, in my view, for reasons set out here – emphasising rejoining the European Union, rather than making a positive case from scratch, that is a case without depending on our previous membership.
Those remainers who accept Brexit in principle are saying little about how the United Kingdom should engage
Those in favour of Brexit in principle are still, to use the famous phrase, the dog that caught the car.
There is drift instead of where post-Brexit development of medium- to long-term policy should be.
The removal of Trump from the American presidency and the ongoing pandemic are further disorientating features.
In the absence of constructive policy formulation, we have from ministers shouty confrontation and culture wars instead.
But as was averred on the cover of a Fat Boy Slim album, they are already number one, so why should they try harder?
The politics of Brexit and beyond have still not settled.
Maybe they will not settle for some time.
Maybe, even, we are still in the early years of a Boris Johnson government – or that he will be replaced by someone even less suited to building a constructive relationship with the European Union.
And, to be even-handed, there is little sign in Brussels and other European Union capitals that they too are seeking a new model relationship with the United Kingdom.
If anything, there is a defensive-rearguard urge just to keep the current withdrawal and relationship agreements in place, let alone think about the future.
And the impending Scottish elections and the politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland may even mean there be soon no United Kingdom to have a relationship with the European Union.
All up in the air, still.
So four months on, there is almost no indication of what the long-term post-Brexit relationship will be like.
Volatility may be the new norm.
Brace, brace.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
The office of the prime minister was not invented in one sudden moment.
The term ‘prime minister’ came to be used generally over time to describe the main minster of the crown, and who was answerable to parliament.
For a long time, the office of prime minister was invisible to our constitutional law.
The first time it was used in a formal instrument was, we are told, when Benjamin Disraeli signed the treaty of Berlin in 1878.
Even in the twentieth century it hardly left a trace on the statute book.
And this gives us an insight in to the strengths and weaknesses of the position.
In constitutional theory, the power of a prime minister derives – ahem, primarily – from two sources.
First, the prime minister has powers derived from the royal prerogative – the fiction being that the prime minister exercises those powers on behalf of the crown.
Second, the prime minister has powers derived from commanding a majority in the house of commons – and thereby control over finance legislation.
The prime minister’s power rests thereby on two constitutional stools.
What the prime minister does not have – at least not formally – is his or her own explicit constitutional centre of gravity.
Almost everything a prime minister can and cannot do ultimately comes from, in theory, either the crown or parliament.
This, in turn, means that the office is difficult to ‘reform’ – for as there are almost no legal instruments that set out the powers of the prime minister, there is no text to amend or replace.
It would be like trying to net a constitutional ghost.
It also means that the office can be as powerful and as weak as personalties and circumstances allow – you would not be able to tell just from constitutional law alone why certain prime ministers are strong or otherwise, and how certain prime ministers lose power.
For explanations for why, for example, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair both left office despite winning three general elections each you will have to look at books about politics and not about constitutional law.
And so what we are celebrating is not so much three hundred years of an office but a lack of a defined office, but one at the centre of practical political power.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Every so often with Boris Johnson as prime minister there will be, in effect, the excuse of ‘the king’s evil counsellors’.
This useful excuse means that the prime minister is not really culpable for his decisions, but somebody else on whom he relied.
For example: it may be in the form of ‘Boris takes control‘ news report – which, of course, suggests that those who hitherto had responsibility did so without the prime minister’s support or direction.
Or: it may be in the form of the Prime Minister ‘distancing himself’ from a report or a decision issued by Downing Street.
In any case it is a form of plausible deniability – that is is one of the prime minister’s advisors or ministers to blame, and not the prime minister.
Johnson is especially adept at this evasion.
It means that somebody else is always to blame – and he can shake his head and affect to be innocent – he was merely advised badly.
That his ‘evil counsellors’ were at fault, but not him.
There is controversy in the news today about central government communications
In particular, there is – correct – criticism that government press offices are generally unhelpful to those from the outside making the enquiries and too motivated by serving the political interests of the ministers of the day.
This, sadly, is nothing new – though it does appear to be getting worse.
This is, of course, a subjective and personal perspective – other commentators and journalists may have less frustrating – indeed happier – experiences.
But if the current criticisms – as affirmed by my own experience – are valid then the most likely explanation is akin to the view adopted by that police officer the other day.
You will recall the officer who insisted that the police were crown servants as distinct from public servants.
Press offices, ditto.
(Also freedom of information offices – but that is for another post.)
Government press officers seem to see their role as actively not providing information to the public and the press, but instead seeking to withhold information and misdirect media attention.
Unless a journalist has an already good relationship with a press officer, there is little or no point asking for anything useful from a press office.
This is why, for example, I prefer to work with public domain and open source information – and to spot connections and identify discrepancies.
Harder, slower work – but worthwhile.
This means I usually only go to government press offices in two situations.
First, if there is genuinely no other way I can obtain the information from public domain or open source material.
Second, if I need some specific thing verified (or rebutted) before publication – where I have worked that thing out by other means.
This approach means that there is little scope for a government press office to shape my writing and commentary – only to influence it, if at all, at the margins.
My approach here is not unique – and it is because government press offices are so adept at being (ahem) gatekeepers that they sometimes pay the price by not being involved in reports and commentary, other than perhaps to provide a statement or not.
Tight media management can only achieve so much.
This is not the only way government press officers are being avoided – as ministers and ministerial special advisers build up their own direct trusted relationships with political journalists.
And so government press offices – although they seem to be expanding in size – are also being squeezed in substance.
Employing more and more people to say less and less.
Government comms disappearing into a hole of its own creation.
And in the meantime, the notion of a government press office being there to serve and inform the public becomes a smaller and smaller speck in the law and policy sky.
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Ten years ago this month the singer David Emmanuel – known as Smiley Culture – died under arrest during a police raid.
The cause of death was a knife wound – which the police said was self-inflcited.
Ten years ago I blogged about this extraordinary death – and so this post is a follow-on so as to see what happened (and did not happen) next.
*
Smiley Culture was part of the soundtrack of those of us brought up in the 1980s.
Have a click and listen and watch.
The sneering, aggressive vocal characterisation of the officer – ‘Shut your bloody mouth. We ask. You answer’ – felt spot on for those in communities which dealt with the police.
Police Officer especially caught a certain mood about the police’s attitude.
*
Here is the singer posing outside a south London police station on the cover of the single:
*
The news of the circumstances of the death of Smiley Culture seemed – literally – incredible.
That someone could stab themselves fatally in the chest in the presence of police officers seemed surreal – like something akin to those lines in the Blackadder episode Dish and Dishonesty.
But this – horrifically – was real, not a fiction.
*
The name of Smiley Culture is now recalled as one of a long list of name of black people who have died in police custody or in similar situations.
So what happened with his case?
Putting events together now, the main consequence of the death was a coroner’s inquest in June-July 2013.
After a two-week hearing, the jury returned a majority verdict that the cause of death was indeed suicide.
(A majority verdict, of course, means that the jury could not come to an unanimous verdict, which in turn means that at least one juror had doubt that it was a suicide.)
According to a BBC report, the inquest heard medical evidence that the fatal wound could have been self-inflicted, if the right spot was chosen:
‘Dr Nathaniel Cary, who carried out a second post-mortem examination on Mr Emmanuel’s body, said told the inquest it was possible the fatal stab wound was, as described, a self-inflicted injury.
‘But he said that on pathological grounds alone there was nothing to determine that this was the case, although it was fair to say the site chosen may be used in self-infliction.’
The majority of the jurors accepted this as the explanation.
As counter-intuitive as this verdict may seem, it must be remembered that those jurors sat through two weeks of evidence – which was cross-examined on behalf of the deceased’s family.
But another person who sat through that hearing – the daughter of Smiley Culture – was not satisfied.
‘After listening to over two weeks of evidence and having had the opportunity to test the accounts of the officers, I feel no closer to the truth than I did before.
‘I have approached this inquest with an open mind hoping to hear for myself what happened on the day of my dad’s death.
‘Despite the jury’s verdict, the inconsistencies in the evidence have only served to raise serious concerns on my part about what really happened on the morning of March 15 2011.’
*
That a person in a room drinking tea with a police officer should suddenly get up, produce a large kitchen knife and plunge it in his own chest so as to kill themselves is, even accepting the jury’s verdict, an extreme fact situation.
Even if it were suicide, there are questions to be asked about how it happened, and answers to be given in the public interest.
‘Despite the suicide verdict, the jury did find that the way in which Mr Emmanuel was supervised following his arrest materially contributed to his death. In particular, the fact that a single officer was left to supervise Mr Emmanuel while also completing paperwork was felt to be inappropriate.
‘The inquest has also highlighted serious failings in the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation, including a failure to attend the scene until some four hours after the event, a failure to secure all relevant evidence, and a failure to critically analyse opinions expressed by the expert witnesses.
‘Following the verdict, the Coroner, Mr Richard Travers, said that he would write to the Metropolitan Police Service, highlighting failures that contributed towards the death, making recommendations for changes aimed at preventing similar tragedies in future.’
*
The (then) Independent Police Complaints Commission issued the following press release after the inquest verdict (emphasis added):
‘Following today’s conclusion of the inquest into the death of David Emmanuel, also known as Smiley Culture, IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin said:
‘David Emmanuel’s death caused huge shock, anger and disbelief in the community and I am aware that many people, most importantly Mr Emmanuel’s family, have waited over two years for the evidence to be heard at an inquest.
‘The ongoing dynamic assessments made by officers on the 15 March 2011 were left wanting. Four experienced officers felt it appropriate to detain a suspect in the kitchen, potentially the most dangerous room in the house and afforded him a level of freedom not normally associated with an operation of this kind.
‘The IPCC has made a series of recommendations to the Metropolitan Police following this investigation presenting them with areas that should be reviewed and changed in light of the findings. These include recommendations on dynamic risk assessments, the sharing of information and use of officer personal safety equipment.
‘The IPCC made two national recommendations following this investigation. The first is that officers should always detain people in the safest part of the house. Therefore kitchens must generally be avoided at all times. The second national recommendation focused on officer safety equipment and that all officers and staff attending search operations should carry with them the appropriate personal safety equipment.
‘While the IPCC highlighted these areas of learning for the MPS, the officers’ actions did not meet the threshold for misconduct under the Police (conduct) Regulations 2008 and no disciplinary action has been recommended.
‘I hope that this inquest has provided Mr Emmanuel’s family with some of the answers they and the community have so patiently waited for. This has been a long process for all the parties involved and I would like to thank them for their patience.
‘Notes to editors
‘Mr Emmanuel died on 15 March 2011 of a single stab wound through the heart at his home on Hillbury Road in Warlingham, Surrey. Four officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) were at the house at the time, carrying out a search of the property.
‘After careful consideration and in consultation with lawyers from both the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Commissioner Mike Franklin, took the decision not to formally refer the case to the CPS as the investigation found no evidence that a criminal offence may have been committed.
‘Consideration was also given as to whether the actions of individual officers met the threshold for misconduct under the Police (conduct) Regulations 2008. The investigation found there were no individual failings which, for the purposes of the Regulations, amounted to misconduct.’
*
So the conduct of the police was ‘found wanting’, somebody died under arrest, but this was an opportunity for ‘learning’ rather than any formal proceedings.
The coroner, in turn, also made recommendations.
Thanks to a tweeter, we have what appears to have a formal record of the recommendations:
Presumably this is report 208 on p39 at https://t.co/2zixUC50Q4 ? If the inquest had been 4 weeks later we could read the letter and responses.
No doubt in each of those situations there are special facts – but it is marked that the police rarely face any proceedings, let alone criminal charges for any of these deaths.
And it may well be that the close scrutiny of each case could dispel any suspicion that something wrong happened every time.
But the accumulation of deaths as set against the absence of successful prosecutions seems to be a mismatch.
Given the facts of the death of Smiley Culture, as determined by a majority of a jury, it may contested that his death is not as glaring example of this apparent trend of injustices as many others.
But like one or two of the others that have died while in the custody (or ‘care’) of the police, he happened to be more famous than the rest, and so his is one of the names that will be cited.
And even the IPCC found the conduct of the police at the time of his death to be ‘wanting’ – with both the IPCC and the coroner separately making recommendations about how such searches are conducted in future.
So even if one accepts the coroner’s inquest – and again the jury heard the relevant evidence cross-examined and a majority of those jurors were convinced it was suicide – the death followed carelessness by the police.
I am still seeking to find out if those recommendations were formally accepted by the police and the home office – though I have been told by police sources that the training for such searches now includes the need for risk assessments that would cover what happened in the death of Smiley Culture.
I will post here again on this subject when I have further information about what happened with the recommendations of the coroner and the IPCC.
It is important to follow these things through, even ten years later – especially as black people continue to die in police custody, and there are never any formal proceedings.
**
***
Thank you for reading this post on this daily law and policy blog.
If you value this free-to-read post, and the independent legal and policy commentary this blog and my Twitter feed provides for both you and others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
****
You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
*****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
*
