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 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/08/mark-duggan-inquest-high-court-judicial-review

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Duggan inquest: judge grants family limited permission for a judicial review Duggan inquest: family win right to challenge coroner's direction to jury
(35 minutes later)
The family of Mark Duggan have won the right to challenge a coroner's directions to the jury before it concluded that the shooting by the Metropolitan police was lawful. The family of Mark Duggan whose shooting by the Metropolitan police sparked riots across the country in 2011 have won the right to challenge a coroner's directions to the jury that concluded the officer's actions were lawful.
In a ruling just released, the high court said it could be arguable that the lawful killing verdict cannot stand because of alleged errors the coroner made when he directed the jury about the law. In a ruling released on Tuesday, the high court said it could be arguable that the lawful killing verdict cannot stand because of alleged errors the coroner made when he directed the jury about the law.
A jury in January concluded that Duggan did not have a gun in his hand when he came face to face with armed officers, but found the police shot him in August 2011 lawfully. That finding angered Duggan's family and led to furious scenes in court; the jury fled the courtroom. Duggan's family said the ruling had given them a "glimmer of hope" that they might see justice at some point.
A jury in January concluded that Duggan did not have a gun in his hand when he came face to face with armed officers, but found that the police shot him in August 2011 lawfully. That finding angered Duggan's family and led to furious scenes in court; the jury fled the courtroom.
Duggan, 29, was shot twice by a police marksman, called V53 in court, after police gained intelligence that he had collected a weapon. The shooting sparked riots across England.Duggan, 29, was shot twice by a police marksman, called V53 in court, after police gained intelligence that he had collected a weapon. The shooting sparked riots across England.
In a judgment, Mr Justice Mitford said he would grant limited permission for a judicial review: "The coroner's direction to the jury about the conclusion of lawful killing was arguably inadequate in two respects – it failed to make clear to the jury that they must conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that:• V53 [the police marksman] did honestly, even if mistakenly, believe that Mark Duggan held a gun in his hand immediately before he was shot.• If V53 had that honest belief and it was mistaken, the mistake must have been a reasonable one for him to have made."In a judgment, Mr Justice Mitford said he would grant limited permission for a judicial review: "The coroner's direction to the jury about the conclusion of lawful killing was arguably inadequate in two respects – it failed to make clear to the jury that they must conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that:• V53 [the police marksman] did honestly, even if mistakenly, believe that Mark Duggan held a gun in his hand immediately before he was shot.• If V53 had that honest belief and it was mistaken, the mistake must have been a reasonable one for him to have made."
The high court ruling continues: "The coroner's direction did not address either of these questions. If it should have done, it is, in consequence, arguable that the conclusion of lawful killing cannot stand."The high court ruling continues: "The coroner's direction did not address either of these questions. If it should have done, it is, in consequence, arguable that the conclusion of lawful killing cannot stand."
Duggan's brother, Shaun Hall, said: "The day we walked out of the high court after the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing it was as though Mark had been killed all over again as far as the family was concerned. Today's permission to judicially review the coroner's directions to the jury is a glimmer of hope for us that maybe we can still get justice for Mark. We know we still have a long road ahead but today we are a step nearer to getting justice for Mark."
The high court rejected other arguments the Duggan family were pursuing as they seek to challenge the jury's finding of lawful killing. The application was brought in the name of Pamela Duggan, the dead man's mother. The coroner was Keith Cutler. A full judicial review hearing will take place later.The high court rejected other arguments the Duggan family were pursuing as they seek to challenge the jury's finding of lawful killing. The application was brought in the name of Pamela Duggan, the dead man's mother. The coroner was Keith Cutler. A full judicial review hearing will take place later.
Duggan was shot after armed officers forced a cab he was travelling in to stop, based on intelligence that he was part of a gang and had collected a gun.Duggan was shot after armed officers forced a cab he was travelling in to stop, based on intelligence that he was part of a gang and had collected a gun.
The family of Duggan were devastated after the inquest jury decided he was not holding a gun when shot by police, but nevertheless found the marksman's decision to open fire was lawful.The family of Duggan were devastated after the inquest jury decided he was not holding a gun when shot by police, but nevertheless found the marksman's decision to open fire was lawful.
The inquest jury decided by an eight-to-two majority that they believed the firearms officer had acted lawfully.The inquest jury decided by an eight-to-two majority that they believed the firearms officer had acted lawfully.
V53 testified that he was sure he had seen a gun in Duggan's right hand and believed that the suspect was preparing to use it.V53 testified that he was sure he had seen a gun in Duggan's right hand and believed that the suspect was preparing to use it.
After Duggan was shot, the gun, wrapped in a sock, was found on the other side of a fence three to six metres away from where the fatally injured Duggan fell to the pavement. Neither the gun nor the sock had any DNA or fingerprints from Duggan. The jury was asked how the gun got to the place it was found; the Duggan family claimed that the police had placed it there. By a nine-to-one majority the jury dismissed a police cover-up, concluding that Duggan threw the gun out of the window of a cab he was travelling in.After Duggan was shot, the gun, wrapped in a sock, was found on the other side of a fence three to six metres away from where the fatally injured Duggan fell to the pavement. Neither the gun nor the sock had any DNA or fingerprints from Duggan. The jury was asked how the gun got to the place it was found; the Duggan family claimed that the police had placed it there. By a nine-to-one majority the jury dismissed a police cover-up, concluding that Duggan threw the gun out of the window of a cab he was travelling in.
No date has yet been set for the judicial review hearing.No date has yet been set for the judicial review hearing.