Tuesday, 5 January 2010

1340 Princess Diana Further Direction and film Out of the Past

00.00 April 2008 Felt like working, so worked. Completed two volumes involving three new sets of creative writing from Blog work and the four sets of development work associated with writings and other work and life activities. I must have completed at least 1000 creative sets out of first 10000 and then double this in the next 10000 and better still achieve 25%, I can included the 100 editions of Parliament and Social Work and my published public writing in my professional and managerial life unless individual items could pose problem which will involve a legal consultation I cannot afford, I feel my writing about Diana Princess of Wales has been balanced. The explanation about legal position given my the Coroner has a double significance for me in terms of going a coroner as a last resort in the event the outcome of the appeal to the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman proves unacceptable. This thought unsettled because of the awareness of the work that would be involved, the stress and affect on the rest of my life. I have also to take account of the way I chose to approach the matter from the outset. Oh the wisdom which comes from hindsight

04.00 Oh dear me it is far later than I hope before going to bed as I needed to spend an hour playing chess and hearts before feeling able to go bed sufficiently relaxed to sleep.

10.00 It was after ten when I managed to get myself up and another two hours passed before I begin to feel up to coping with the demands of a new day. I have not been idle as the process of converting transcript of the summing up of Coroner as an appendix to this Blog is a slow one, although it enables me to digest and study what was said in terms of the case in question and how I should approach the situation in relation to my care mother regardless of the process in which I will be undertaking in the future. I need to get myself ready to go out, but will have a brunch first and also await the post.

13.00 I enjoyed half the fish platter for lunch which comprises a large chunk of Tuna, two king prawns and skewer with squares of salmon, prawns and pieces of two other fishes. There is a similar portion for tomorrow, the traditional fish on Fridays, except that a large chunk of salmon replaces the tuna. The main dish of the day was followed by a banana, orange juice and the general vitamin tablet. Watched the news where the main interest is the interest rate reduction, followed by Bargain Hunt seen before although could not predict the precise outcome but remembered the general drift. Nearly reached the point of getting myself washed for the day shaved etc and going out as required.

14.00.-18.00 It was time to play and the first toy that is not a toy was the scale red Ferrari. The first task was to remove the vehicle from the display base. Eventually discover retaining screws. The steering works better on the carpet and has flashing lights. I feel quite guilty about spending the time this way and decide to go to the post box and although it was not warm and the clouds were darkening the skies I felt in need of fresh air so walked down through the parks to the sea front, North Marine is now full of pansies and the tulips are out white ones nearest where I walked. It looked as if all the planting has been carried in South Marine park around by the railings. I am not good at estimating but I would be surprised if tens of thousands of pounds has not been spent on the shrubs, trees and flowering perennials. The railings are ready for painting black. There was mud and water along the main pathway which a specialist vehicle mopped up. Near to the front, as I approached lakeside, there are three beds of pansies in flower, and dozens of hyacinths, deep purple and then pink. Because it is Easter holiday the steam train was in operation at £1 a passenger for just one circuit. I thought you got a double round but this may be only when the train is full. It was belching huge amounts of steam given its small size. The lake is still fenced around as work is being done to the surround. I thought there was a dead swan in the area which had been drained and then partially refilled, as it was motionless and its head appeared buried in its body. However it was active when I made the return journey. The fun fair was also open with some customers, but because of the conditions there were few people about, and shortly after my return it rained heavily

I turned my attention to the helicopter. This appears fragile and there are lots of instructions on how to repair when it crashes. It took me a long time to work out where the motor switch on the helicopter is located. It has a sealed battery unit which needs charging to enable a ten to twelve minute flight time and I mixed up the stated charging time between units and thought I had overcharged. As with the car it has flashing lights and it flies but decided to leave mastering until another day. It brought back memories when as a child I could not get things to work, on took them apart to find out how they worked and could not put them back together again.
Because I could not control speed and direction, it came down with a bump several times and I decided that I would attempt to learn using the double bed. I would make time and put right aspects of my childhood.

16.00.18.00 What is regarded as one of the great film noir of all time was shown this afternoon, The film Out of the Past, billed after the title of the original book Build My Gallows High had a showing. Featuring Robert Mitcham, Kirk Douglas and Jane Greer, this 1947, film has Mitcham running a petrol station in a small town and falling in love with an ordinary local girl, but alas his whereabouts are discovered by the hired the gangster factotum of Kirk Douglas and his past catches up with him. Mitcham reveals that he was a former detective hired by Douglas to find his former mistress who had run off with 40000 dollars, say half a million at today's values. Understandably being Mitcham he falls instantly for the willing charms of Ms Greer when he finds her over the border down Mexico way, to an extent that he lies to his employer claiming she has got on a boat to South America and shortly afterwards the couple take a slow boat to San Francisco where they lead a quite life earning their way by low level detective work, until he encounters his former partner who has been hired by Douglas to locate them. Again they take flight going their separate ways until they think the valley is clear. Alas the former partner tracks them to their cabin in the sky and to his surprise and horror the dame guns down their pursuer. At this point Mitcham decide to begin his new quiet in the middle of nowhere until his whereabouts is located and he is summoned back to his former employer. To his surprise the motive is not because of past dealings but in order to deal with some income tax records which a lawyer is trying to blackmail Mr Douglas, and as an incentive Douglas has faked evidence that Mitcham and not the dame killed the partner, and surprise surprise, the dame is back in his bed, so her believes her as did Mitcham when she said she did not take the money until finds such an amount entered into her bank account. It is at this point the situation becomes more complicated as Mitcham is also framed for the killing of the lawyer, and guess who did that, but a way out is possible when Kirk's sidekick is accidentally killed while trying to kill Mitcham, acting on the orders of you know who, who also then kills Kirk before trying to persuade Mitcham to run off with her. Mitchum calls the police but is killed by the dame when the police stop their get away car. She kills him and the police kill her. Guess crime does not pay and beware psychopathic dames.

While I watched the film I had two slices of Brown bread with smoked salmon and horseradish, having acquired two packs with eat me end of this week dates. I make and drink a pot of tea.

20.00 At eight o'clock it is time for the last eight finalist of American Idol to performs songs of hope and belief, Jason Castro does Somewhere over the Rainbow and David Aucheleta, Angels, both memorable performances, I also enjoyed The Show must go on and you have got to have a friend.

21.00 Against expectation I also enjoyed the Barbara Windsor You know who you are, which I missed the first time round, in which she discovers that her Eastenders connections had their roots in Ireland and Suffolk. The Cork Irish branch, a cabinet maker, brought his family to England to escape the great famine and ended in one of the poorest areas of London, while the Suffolk man, a bricklayer and a distant cousins of the John Constable family also moved to London, when trading conditions changed and both he and his son end up in the workhouse. Barbara is about my age and looks great and her husband looks even younger and greater. They both looked as if they are enjoying life and each other.

22.00 I enjoy two spicy bean cakes with a coffee for supper and catch up with an episode of Benidorm, the working class on holiday home from home style. There are several funny moments which ring true from personal experiences at Lorret Del Mar.

23.00 It could appear to those who do not know me, or my subsequent work, that someone who sets out to defy convention and prepared to spend six months in prison to make a point has little or no respect for the law. The opposite has always been the situation and doing what I did was the most difficult things to do and was only embarked on as a means to make the point that there is no moral justification in any circumstances to wage war on mothers and their children, old men and women, and everyone else who is not a combatant. It is as simple as that, it always has been and always will. This does not mean what who take or who are given responsibility for the defence and protection of others do not find themselves having to make difficult choices and where the issues cannot always be reduced to simple choices between good and bad, right or wrong. It is a feature of British Society that the rule of law is the fundamental upon which representative democracy is based, No one is above the law and to day the British Government of Tony Blair was formally censured by the Court of Appeal because it intervened to prevent proper enquiries into allegations that a British Company had acted corruptly to gain a contract because of the pressure from the government of the country involved. The law is made up of case law, judgements made by courts which have a bearing on all subsequent cases with similar characteristics and Parliamentary Law which is then open to be challenged and interpreted through the courts. Judges are also human beings and therefore under the British system it is open to challenge how a case has been conducted and how the law has been interpreted. As he explained yesterday what the Coroner of the Diana Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed Inquest stated to be the law in relation to the evidence submitted was his responsibility.

"You are asked to consider five different verdicts," He commenced.. The same verdict should obviously be returned in the case of Dodi as is returned in the case of Diana, Princess of Wakes.
"The five possible verdicts are

(1) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles);

(2) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);

(3) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes); (4) Accidental death;

(5) Open verdict.

You should first of all consider the first three verdicts together. If you consider that none of those verdicts should be returned, you should then consider the fourth verdict and then the fifth verdict. Unlawful killing by gross negligence manslaughter:
general.
I have indicated that it would be open to you to find unlawful killing by gross negligence on the part of the drivers or riders following the Mercedes or by grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes or both.
Such unlawful killing is a form of the very serious crime of manslaughter. What then are the ingredients of unlawful killing by gross negligence? Before you can return a verdict of unlawful killing, you must be satisfied so that you are sure: First, that the person or persons whose driving you are considering owed a duty of care to the deceased. Here, that would be the duty that one road user normally owes to another. Second, that the person or persons whose driving you are considering breached that duty of care. Put shortly, whether his or their driving was negligent that is to say, fell below the standard of driving expected of a reasonably competent driver.

Third, that the breach of duty you have identified caused the deaths. It would not need to be the sole cause of the deaths. It would be sufficient for the breach of duty to be a significant contributory cause of the crash and deaths.

Fourth, if you are sure of all those things, you must go on to consider whether the breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime. The essence of the matter is whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the person or persons whose driving you are considering was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act. What that means is that you would have to be sure that the breach of duty that you have identified was so gross as to amount to the very serious crime of manslaughter. The standard of proof that applies when you consider questions of gross negligence manslaughter is the criminal standard: namely you must be satisfied so that you are sure in respect of each of the elements that I have identified. It is not enough, as I am sure you are aware now, to prove mere negligence. Ordinarily, negligence gives rise to claims only for damages, but to consider a person guilty of manslaughter, you have to go a lot further. You must be sure that he has been grossly negligent. Now, what does "grossly negligent" mean? In broad terms, as I have said, the question is posed in this way: you have to consider whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the driver or drivers in question was so bad as in all the circumstances to amount, in your judgment, to a criminal act or omission. You might find that a rather circular definition. It is apparent from what I have already said that it is not enough that the conduct calls for compensation. Nor is it enough that you feel that the acts or omissions of the driver or drivers in question would call, in your judgment, for some form of punishment. What you have to be convinced about is that the negligence was bad enough to be condemned as the grave crime of manslaughter. In considering the extent to which the driving in question must deviate from mere breach of duty and mere negligence, if I may call it that, you might derive some assistance from the word "reckless".You probably have a pretty clear understanding of that word. The allegation of fault in this case could only fairly be categorised as grossly negligent if the driver or drivers in your judgment was or were wholly indifferent to an obvious risk of death or actually foresaw that risk of death, but determined to run it nonetheless. Only then could you reach the threshold of contemplating that the negligent action is of such a heinous or flagrant character as to be fairly categorised as deserving of severe punishment for the grave crime of 11 manslaughter. Another way of looking at it is this: you should embark on the task of placing yourself in the position of the driver of the Mercedes on the one hand or the following vehicle on the other, going along the expressway and approaching the Alma Tunnel. It is in that context that, when considering an individual's action, you must reflect upon whether there was an obvious, serious risk of death to the passengers in the Mercedes and that the driver or drivers concerned were either wholly indifferent to that risk or, having recognised that risk to be present, deliberately chose to run the risk by continuing what they were doing.

Separate treatment.
Although, as you may well think, the driving of the Mercedes and of those vehicles following it were linked, you must consider the driving of the Mercedes quite separately from that of the following vehicles. The question for you, when looking at the Mercedes, is whether the driver was grossly negligent in his driving in a respect that caused or contributed to the crash and the resulting deaths. The position concerning the following vehicles should also be looked at separately.

It may be that you will be able to isolate the conduct of individual drivers or riders (even if you do not know their names) with sufficient clarity to enable you to decide one way or another whether the driving was grossly negligent and caused or contributed to the crash and consequent deaths. But you are also entitled to look at the conduct of a number of riders and drivers of following vehicles together, if you are satisfied that they were engaged in a "joint enterprise". That does not require an agreement in advance by those people. The question, in essence, is "Were they in it together?" You may rely upon conduct of particular persons involved to support a conclusion that they were "in it together" in the sense that they were consciously chasing the Mercedes in concert with 5 the others.
Approach to the first three verdicts.

You may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by the grossly negligent driving on the part of one or more of the following drivers, but not on the part of the Mercedes driver. If so, you should return the first verdict: unlawful killing, (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles). Secondly, you may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of the Mercedes driver but not on the part of the following vehicles. If so, you should return the second verdict: unlawful killing, (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes).Thirdly you may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of the Mercedes driver and the following vehicles, looking at them quite separately. If so, you should return the third verdict: unlawful killing, (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes). Accidental death. You may conclude that, whilst there was bad driving in evidence on the approach to the Alma Tunnel, it was not so bad that you can be sure that these deaths were caused by the gross negligence of anyone. If that is the position, you must go on to consider the question of accidental death.
The standard of proof required for you to return a verdict of accidental death is different. It is the civil standard of balance of probabilities, which means no more than that something is more likely than not. You will return verdicts of accidental death if
you are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the crash and subsequent deaths were the result of an accident. When considering whether these deaths were the result of an accident, you must look at all of the evidence, including such evidence as there may be which might provide support for the contention that
the crash was deliberately staged. Open verdict. If you unanimously decide that the evidence does not support any of the edicts which I have identified, then you are entitled to return an open verdict. The definition of this verdict is that the evidence is
insufficient to support any substantive verdict to the relevant standard of proof. If that were to be the situation, it would be a failure of the evidence, not of yours. But do not use an open verdict because you cannot establish a peripheral point about the crash.

Do not use an open verdict because you disagree among yourselves. And do not use an open verdict as a mark of censure or disapproval. Your duty is to find the facts and reach conclusions on the evidence and this must transcend any feelings you have in the matter. Narrative conclusions. shall now ask for you to be provided with two inquisitions: [one for Dodi] and [one for Diana]. An inquisition is a formal document which records the conclusions of the jury. Some uncontroversial matters have been filled in. You are at liberty to amend or correct those details if you think I have it
wrong. Your very important task is to complete two parts of each inquisition: parts 3 and 4. Part 4 is where you write the verdict. You will write one of the6 five verdicts I have given to you. Part 3 is headed "Time, place and circumstances of death". As you will see, a passage has been typed in. I shall deal with Diana's inquisition for simplicity's sake. Diana, Princess of Wales, died at the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in Paris at around 4.00 am on
31st August 1997, as the result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma Underpass in Paris on31st August 1997 at around 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by.

You will then, members of the jury, consider each of the following and consider whether it can be said that any of them was a matter which made a causal contribution to the crash. You should write in which of them which you consider, on the balance of
probabilities, made a material contribution to the crash. You can write in as many or as few as you wish. They are:(i) the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes;(ii) the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles; (iii) the manner of driving of a white Fiat Uno ahead of the Mercedes;(iv) the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol.
(v) one or more bright lights. You will then see the words "In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by ... [delete as appropriate]." There are then three possible causes which might or might not be regarded as contributing to death: (i) the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt;

(ii) the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel (rather than colliding with something else); And in Diana's case only: (iii) the loss of an opportunity to render medical treatment. Again, you may write in as many or as few of those
as you find established. These are potential causes of death as distinct from potential causes of the crash. The difference in general is a matter of common sense. Failure to wear a seat-belt cannot have caused this crash, but it may have contributed to their deaths. There was also some evidence that the fact of striking the pillar rather than, for example, the opposite wall, increased the forces involved and the likelihood of death.

You will note that the option to include a reference to medical treatment only arises in the case of Diana, otherwise all the factors will be the same. I have explained that your function is to answer the questions posed by the law: namely who the deceased were, when, where and how they came by their deaths. You fulfil that important statutory task by completing the inquisition forms in the way I have described. The law requires that neither you nor I shall express an opinion on any matter other than those questions (except for certain formulaic particulars required by the Registration Acts, which are already typed on the draft forms).Additionally, no verdict can be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability on the part of a named person or civil liability. There is a good reason for this rule. Because inquests are inquiries, they do not have all the procedural rules which exist to protect defendants in criminal and civil cases. Therefore, Parliament has decided that inquest verdicts should not appear to determine a question of criminal liability of a named person, even though an unlawful killing verdict amounts to a finding that a crime has been committed and even though it may be obvious who the jury believe have
committed the crime. Similarly, Parliament has decided that inquest verdicts should not appear to determine civil liability. By following the directions I have given, you and I will abide by these rules. The inquisition forms which you have and the directions I have given have been carefully composed to record material conclusions without breaching the rules. If there are any other matters that you wish to add, please communicate the substance of the matter to me in writing before you do so, and I will consider whether it is appropriate, having regard to the rules, that you do so. We will now break off for our mid-morning break for quarter of an hour, which I certainly want, even if you don't. (11.15 am) (A short break)(11.32 am)(Jury present) LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I turn next to an overview of the conspiracy theories. "

No comments:

Post a Comment