What happened to Stephen Lawrence was tragic, a young man, with his whole life ahead of him and who didn’t deserve to lose his life, died in the street in violent circumstances.
The subsequent investigation into the death was flawed in the extreme, and the prosecution was mishandled by the CPS and associated agencies. This meant that the case against the alleged offenders was of poor quality and the defendants were subsequently found not guilty. The police and the CPS didn’t do their jobs properly and many would say justice was not done.
I fully support the idea of the Lawrence family getting substantial compensation from the police because the investigation was mishandled. Also there should have been an investigation into the mishandled investigation and police procedures for similar cases should have been improved.
What I cannot support is trying people twice for the same offence. The law on double jeopardy has been a vital bulwark against despotism, and now, because of the Lawrences, that protection is now no more.
Because the Lawrences didn’t get the result they wanted from the courts, they cried ‘racism’ and pressured the Labour Government to change the law on double jeopardy in order to get a conviction against those who had already been tried by a jury. Of course I understand, and sympathise with the Lawrences that in the original court hearings they didn’t get the justice that they thought they should have got, but that is no excuse for removing a vital protection from malicious prosecution from those of future generations.
Although the Lawrence family got the result they wanted, because of their selfishness in demanding that double jeopardy was abandoned, they have placed future generations at grave risk of injustice. Any future government, possibly one that is extremely oppressive, may use this law change to make multiple consecutive prosecutions of, for example, political dissidents, until the jury or judge returns a result with which the government was happy.
The ability to keep prosecuting a person until a guilty verdict is obtained makes a mockery of the word ‘justice’.
The Lawrences, by their and their supporters actions, have placed a Sword of Damocles above the heads of you, your children and your grandchildren. You may think that those who were convicted at the second trial of involvement in the death got their just deserts, but would you think the same way if it was you or your offspring who were innocent of a crime but who were constantly threatened with re-prosecution for the same offence? I think not.
I used to feel sorry for the Lawrences because of their tragic loss. Now however, I despise them for what they have done to the legal system.
Whenever I see the Lawrences pontificating on the media, I don’t think, there go brave bereaved parents, but instead think, ‘what a bunch of selfish bastards’.
If you see Doreen Lawrence, politely tell her what she’s done, tell her how she has damaged protection for the innocent and tell her that she should be ashamed of what she has done, not only to this generation but to future ones.
Ms Lawrence, and the whole Lawrence family, you’ve had more than your day in court, you got the result you wanted, and you have given future despots a dangerous weapon to use against the British people. Is it not now the time for you to shut up, f**k off and live your life quietly?
Amen!
The first prosecution of the thugs wgho murdered Stephen L\awrence was not a cock-up by the CPS but a blatant political action by the Lawrence’s solicitor in persuading them to bring a private prosecution. The solicitor, whose name escapes me, wanted to to enter the political field an felt this was the best way of doing it, and hang the consequences. Thje CPOS tried to dissuade the Lawrences as their was not sufficient evidence at that time. Thatis why the guilty were acquitted and, of course, the blame fell on the ‘institutionalised racialist’ Police. If they had waited another couple of months, there would hav been sufficient evidence to obtain a guilty verdict. In the event, it took a change in the law for justice (such as it was) to be seen to be done.
Although you may well be correct with regards to the private prosecution, there is still the problem that to get the Lawrence family justice, the law was changed and this has created a precedent which is going to be used in the future whether justly or unjustly (more than likely unjustly). I think the lawyer you are thinking about is Mansfield, one of Cheri Blair’s oppos. Although I also want justice to be done and be seen to be done, I can’t help thinking that this removal of double jeopardy is going to come back to haunt us in the future.
Rather than changing the law to make it easier in the future for the police to have two bites of the cherry, maybe the Lawrences would have been better of campaigning to see that in the future a) the police handle all victims, victims families and witnesses equally and b) that prosecutors are not bunglers.
I completley agree that there was a political aspect to this case and there were people involved out to make a name for themselves.
Shame the authorities cannot allocate just 1% of what they spent on the Lawrence case to poor Charlene Downes’s case.
And, not that I’m a forensic expert, but the “evidence” that was used in the second trial was suspect, to say the least.
Andy, you are correct. The authorities treated the Downes family appallingly and really mismanaged the case.
I`m sick to fucking death of Doreen Lawrence,how long is she going to milk this thing?
Especially as there are far more white parents who have lost their children to racist violence but manage not to behave in such a mercenary and self promoting manner.
With regards numbers killed I wouldn’t go so far as to say that more white parents have lost children to racist attacks I would be inclined to say that the numbers are probably equal. What is not equal is the way things are handled. We are all equal under the skin, therefore the law should treat us all equally.
Sadly we are not being treated equally in law. The Lawrence case caused a complete change of view within police forces, the outcome of the Charlene Downes case didn’t. I believe IIRC that the Charlene Downes case just ended up with some officers being demoted and ‘retired’ Positive discrimination is a disaster whether it be in the workplace or the legal system. As Shakespeare said in the Merchant of Venice ‘if you prick us do we not also bleed’?
I prefer,”If you wrong us,do we not revenge?”
Numbers are probably equal? Maybe if you’re on some industrial strength drugs. An outright majority of inter-racial murders in the UK are non-white on white and have been for decades. And given the smaller pool of potential perpetrators our poor oppressed bredren have to draw on, then the figures are so far out of whack it just isn’t fucking funny anymore.
I’m speaking about murders where the victims race is a primary driver for a killing. Of course if you add in all the ‘normal’ murders then the ‘white victims’ figure goes up a fair bit. The case of Kris Donald for example is most definitely a racist murder, without a doubt, but there is a danger in seeing all black on white or all white on black killings as being driven by ‘racism’. As regards the ‘probably equal’ statement it appears that Home Office data circa 2006 showed that in cases where there was a racial element in the killings, nearly 24 out of 58 murder victims were white. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race It took a Freedom of Information request to pry this information out of the Home Office and as has become clearer with revelations about the Islamic Grooming Gangs, the police have been badly infested with political correctness and may have been under reporting or mis-categorising racist murder where a white person is the victim.
Even accepting that the original police investigation was less than professional. Doreen lawrence has got what she wanted, both in terms of justice (if it was justice) and compensation. She has in fact made a good living out of her son’s death, as well as doing the British judicial system a great disservice. This removal of the double jeopardy law may cost someone else their freedom, but I doubt Ms Lawrenc will lose sleep over that. How much more does she want now?