This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/27/hillsborough-barrister-rashan-charles-inquest-met-police
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Anger at Met’s choice of Hillsborough QC for Rashan Charles inquest | Anger at Met’s choice of Hillsborough QC for Rashan Charles inquest |
| (12 days later) | |
| The barrister who represented the police in their attempt to show that Liverpool fans contributed to the Hillsborough disaster will represent the Metropolitan police at the inquest for Rashan Charles, a young black man whose death last year sparked protests in east London. | The barrister who represented the police in their attempt to show that Liverpool fans contributed to the Hillsborough disaster will represent the Metropolitan police at the inquest for Rashan Charles, a young black man whose death last year sparked protests in east London. |
| Scotland Yard has hired John Beggs QC, who represented senior South Yorkshire police officers at the Hillsborough inquests, including former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, who was in command during the 1989 disaster and is facing charges of gross negligence manslaughter over the deaths of 96 fans at the FA Cup semi-final. | Scotland Yard has hired John Beggs QC, who represented senior South Yorkshire police officers at the Hillsborough inquests, including former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, who was in command during the 1989 disaster and is facing charges of gross negligence manslaughter over the deaths of 96 fans at the FA Cup semi-final. |
| Beggs infuriated relatives of the dead when he suggested that alcohol contributed to the tragedy, spoke of hooliganism, and aired misbehaviour allegations concerning Liverpool fans. The claims were rejected by the inquest jury, which concluded that the victims were unlawfully killed and the police were primarily to blame. | Beggs infuriated relatives of the dead when he suggested that alcohol contributed to the tragedy, spoke of hooliganism, and aired misbehaviour allegations concerning Liverpool fans. The claims were rejected by the inquest jury, which concluded that the victims were unlawfully killed and the police were primarily to blame. |
| Charles, 20, died on 22 July after being chased into a shop in Dalston, east London, where CCTV images showed an officer struggling with him on the floor before he was restrained and handcuffed. Within 70 minutes of his arrest, Charles was dead. | Charles, 20, died on 22 July after being chased into a shop in Dalston, east London, where CCTV images showed an officer struggling with him on the floor before he was restrained and handcuffed. Within 70 minutes of his arrest, Charles was dead. |
| Friends of the Charles family have called for Beggs to be removed from representing the police during the inquest, scheduled for June. “It’s disgusting. We need someone who has never been involved with this type of thing before,” said Shirley Watkis. | Friends of the Charles family have called for Beggs to be removed from representing the police during the inquest, scheduled for June. “It’s disgusting. We need someone who has never been involved with this type of thing before,” said Shirley Watkis. |
| The development coincides with the controversial decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge the police officer who restrained Charles with common assault. However, the Observer has established that prosecutors informed lawyers for the Charles family of this only hours before the expiration of the six-month period during which common assault charges must by law be made. | The development coincides with the controversial decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge the police officer who restrained Charles with common assault. However, the Observer has established that prosecutors informed lawyers for the Charles family of this only hours before the expiration of the six-month period during which common assault charges must by law be made. |
| This meant that it was impossible for family lawyers to launch a judicial review against the decision, or to pursue justice under the victims’ right to review scheme introduced in 2013, which has seen scores of suspects charged with offences after their alleged victims appealed against initial decisions not to prosecute. | This meant that it was impossible for family lawyers to launch a judicial review against the decision, or to pursue justice under the victims’ right to review scheme introduced in 2013, which has seen scores of suspects charged with offences after their alleged victims appealed against initial decisions not to prosecute. |
| “It’s a concern, to say the least, that they left it until virtually the last minute,” said Carolynn Gallwey of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, who are representing the family. Watkis said: “It’s scandalous that the family never had the opportunity to challenge the decision, everything they [the Met] do is so inconsiderate.” | “It’s a concern, to say the least, that they left it until virtually the last minute,” said Carolynn Gallwey of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, who are representing the family. Watkis said: “It’s scandalous that the family never had the opportunity to challenge the decision, everything they [the Met] do is so inconsiderate.” |
| Prosecutors interviewed the police officer on 4 December under caution. The family and their lawyers pressed for details on the direction of the case but, according to Gallwey, the CPS only notified her of the decision not to prosecute on 19 January. | Prosecutors interviewed the police officer on 4 December under caution. The family and their lawyers pressed for details on the direction of the case but, according to Gallwey, the CPS only notified her of the decision not to prosecute on 19 January. |
| The inability to contest the decision also means that the officer will keep his anonymity during the inquest. The Charles family have been furious that the officer’s identity will be concealed following a controversial coroner’s ruling in November. | The inability to contest the decision also means that the officer will keep his anonymity during the inquest. The Charles family have been furious that the officer’s identity will be concealed following a controversial coroner’s ruling in November. |
| They have voiced concerns that the Met attempted to smear the 20-year-old. After his death, police released a statement saying Charles was taken ill after trying to swallow an object, prompting speculation it was a “controlled substance”. However, weeks later forensic analysis found it was a mixture of paracetamol and caffeine. | They have voiced concerns that the Met attempted to smear the 20-year-old. After his death, police released a statement saying Charles was taken ill after trying to swallow an object, prompting speculation it was a “controlled substance”. However, weeks later forensic analysis found it was a mixture of paracetamol and caffeine. |
| . | . |
| A CPS spokesperson said: “Following the death of Rashan Charles in July 2017, the Independent Office for Police Conduct referred a file of evidence in relation to one Met police officer for a possible charge of common assault in December 2017. | A CPS spokesperson said: “Following the death of Rashan Charles in July 2017, the Independent Office for Police Conduct referred a file of evidence in relation to one Met police officer for a possible charge of common assault in December 2017. |
| “The CPS has considered the matter and decided the evidential test for a prosecution for common assault is not met. We will therefore not be taking any further action regarding this offence. This decision does not mean that charges for other offences will not be considered by the CPS if further evidence is referred to us by the IOPC.” | “The CPS has considered the matter and decided the evidential test for a prosecution for common assault is not met. We will therefore not be taking any further action regarding this offence. This decision does not mean that charges for other offences will not be considered by the CPS if further evidence is referred to us by the IOPC.” |