Hillsborough Law

[Gladys]

Anyone who has followed the events following the tragedy in 1989 must have been appalled at the treatment of the families, the blatant obfuscation and cover up, and the individual stories of determination for justice against the full state machinery.  This was portrayed so poignantly in the ITV series last week "Anne".

Campaigners have been demanding a Hillsborough Law to level the playing field of victims of major tragedies against the state.  It requires state funding of legal representation, a victim's advocate, the requirement of candour for all government bodies on the circumstances of the tragedy and other changes in the criminal and inquest processes to assist victims in receiving justice.

This will be a major achievement and will benefit many victims of not just Hillsborough,  but also Grenfell (only real action now against developers using the inflammable cladding), Manchester Arena bombing, Covid etc.

Relevance to the IOM?

1. Should the IOM have an equivalent law?

2. Should ours go further to apply not only in major tragedies, but where any death or serious injury may be caused by the decisions/actions of IOMG?

What would be caught in 2 would have to be carefully defined, but I am thinking of, say, bonkers road crossings leading to a death, or medical negligence at Noble's where the only recourse is for costly legal action through the courts.   Important for these cases would be the duty of candour, funded litigation and a public process where there is no closing of ranks or quiet out of public view settlements.

It may be that these things are dealt with quietly and privately, but isn't there an argument for an open process which actually gives substance to the oft used proclamations of accountability?

 

[finlo]

There'd be no more TT for starters!

[Non-Believer]

Duty of candour for Govt bodies?

It will be a cold day in Hades....

[craggy_steve]

I agree with you @Gladys.

I think we also need offences of Corporate Manslaughter, Misconduct in Public Office and Misfeasance in Public Office.

IMO we also need to revise the AG's Prosecution Code to remove the bias in favour of public servants, and the Code of Practice between the AG and the Constabulary which requires the Police to refer potential prosecutions of alleged offences by politicians, lawyers, police officers, senior public servants et. al. to the AG for decision about instituting criminal proceedings - these matters should be decided by an independent, not be allowed to create conflicts of interest for the AG.

Can't see any of it happening. Our system is comprehensively stacked to favour and protect the interests of government above those of the residents.

[James Blonde]

Lol

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Anyone who has followed the events following the tragedy in 1989 must have been appalled at the treatment of the families, the blatant obfuscation and cover up, and the individual stories of determination for justice against the full state machinery.  This was portrayed so poignantly in the ITV series last week "Anne".

Campaigners have been demanding a Hillsborough Law to level the playing field of victims of major tragedies against the state.  It requires state funding of legal representation, a victim's advocate, the requirement of candour for all government bodies on the circumstances of the tragedy and other changes in the criminal and inquest processes to assist victims in receiving justice.

This will be a major achievement and will benefit many victims of not just Hillsborough,  but also Grenfell (only real action now against developers using the inflammable cladding), Manchester Arena bombing, Covid etc.

Relevance to the IOM?

1. Should the IOM have an equivalent law?

2. Should ours go further to apply not only in major tragedies, but where any death or serious injury may be caused by the decisions/actions of IOMG?

What would be caught in 2 would have to be carefully defined, but I am thinking of, say, bonkers road crossings leading to a death, or medical negligence at Noble's where the only recourse is for costly legal action through the courts.   Important for these cases would be the duty of candour, funded litigation and a public process where there is no closing of ranks or quiet out of public view settlements.

It may be that these things are dealt with quietly and privately, but isn't there an argument for an open process which actually gives substance to the oft used proclamations of accountability?

 

indeed they are...

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, craggy_steve said:

I agree with you @Gladys.

I think we also need offences of Corporate Manslaughter, Misconduct in Public Office and Misfeasance in Public Office.

IMO we also need to revise the AG's Prosecution Code to remove the bias in favour of public servants, and the Code of Practice between the AG and the Constabulary which requires the Police to refer potential prosecutions of alleged offences by politicians, lawyers, police officers, senior public servants et. al. to the AG for decision about instituting criminal proceedings - these matters should be decided by an independent, not be allowed to create conflicts of interest for the AG.

Can't see any of it happening. Our system is comprehensively stacked to favour and protect the interests of government above those of the residents.

In other words it's corrupt.

[Max Power]

2 hours ago, finlo said:

There'd be no more TT for starters!

That's a bit silly.

 

I think the problem is that the politicians, who should be pushing for laws such as, this are scared off by the CS, the very people who are responsible for a lot of the cock ups we need protection from! And we are just as responsible as we keep electing people with a lack of testicular fortitude!

[craggy_steve]

23 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

In other words it's corrupt.

Not necessarily, although it does create conflicts of interest for the AG.

But more to the point, the missing corporate manslaughter offence may mean that inividuals are prosecuted for manslaughter due to the systemic failings or dodgy policies of corporate bodies / gov't depts because there is no appropriate offence with which to charge the corporate body. etc. 

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

In other words it's corrupt.

I wouldn't say it is corrupt in the back handers sense of the word, but I would say that there is no balance of power between the individual and the state particularly when it comes to personal injury.  When these things are 'dealt with' it is hidden, and that is never a good thing. 

[Andy Onchan]

25 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I wouldn't say it is corrupt in the back handers sense of the word, but I would say that there is no balance of power between the individual and the state particularly when it comes to personal injury.  When these things are 'dealt with' it is hidden, and that is never a good thing. 

There are many forms of corruption and that's something the CS and their MHK mates seem totally oblivious to. The executive and our elected have, by and large, an unhealthy and cozy relationship (at least to the outsider).

[On The Level]

5 hours ago, craggy_steve said:

Not necessarily, although it does create conflicts of interest for the AG.

But more to the point, the missing corporate manslaughter offence may mean that inividuals are prosecuted for manslaughter due to the systemic failings or dodgy policies of corporate bodies / gov't depts because there is no appropriate offence with which to charge the corporate body. etc. 

There are definitely conflicts of interests within the AG Office but I don't believe individuals can be prosecuted for manslaughter if their conduct hasn't directly caused the death? The corporate manslaughter issue has never been highlighted more than following the Solway Harvester tragedy where Gidney was able to walk free, save for a tongue lashing from the late Michael Moyle. If individuals are negligent, and that negligence leads directly to the death of someone, then surely they deserve to face justice for that regardless of their employer?

[Expat.]

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

This will be a major achievement and will benefit many victims of not just Hillsborough,  but also Grenfell (only real action now against developers using the inflammable cladding), Manchester Arena bombing, Covid etc.

A thought provoking post, and if you're inferring that IOMG should have an equivalent law in place, then, of course it should, as should the Government of any civilised country. As I go to get me coat, could I point out that the cladding at Grenfell was flammable, as in capable of being set fire to and not inflammable, as in capable of bursting in flames by itself. Rather like galbestos and oroglas were, compared to, say petrol or fireworks...

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Expat. said:

A thought provoking post, and if you're inferring that IOMG should have an equivalent law in place, then, of course it should, as should the Government of any civilised country. As I go to get me coat, could I point out that the cladding at Grenfell was flammable, as in capable of being set fire to and not inflammable, as in capable of bursting in flames by itself. Rather like galbestos and oroglas were, compared to, say petrol or fireworks...

Thank you and you are, of course, correct. 

[quilp]

It was known all along that the ACM cladding used was highly combustible. And the Hydrogen Cyanide gas released when it burns. Those in the know wilfully ignored these facts and hundreds of thousands of square meters were sold to building companies. Begs the question of how swiftly it's being removed where applied, across the UK.

There's those who need to do serious time for it.

Edited January 11, 2022 by quilp