The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[David Orsam]

>>But Duffin didn't know the woman's name.<<

I don't believe I ever claimed he did.

You said, "As far as Duffin knew, he had details. The man was her husband and he was going to fetch medical help." But Duffin didn't know the woman's name and thus didn't know the man's name so he didn't have any details at all.

[David Orsam]

And yet, it is claimed, that is exactly what he he did. Which is the point I was making.

Yes and in response to that claim there was a huge public uproar and Endacott found himself the subject of an inquiry and then being charged with perjury. So it wasn't exactly a normal situation was it?

[David Orsam]

>>She was, in other words, seen pestering three men and arrested for such behaviour.<<

So the charge was "pestering" not solicitation and prostitution?

I didn't say that.

She was arrested for the pestering. There was no actual evidence of soliciting, which was inferred. What you should have said was that being an accompanied female in broad daylight pestering men was enough for to be arrested for prostitution.

[David Orsam]

>>She was, in other words, seen pestering three men and arrested for such behaviour.<<

She was allegedly seen. Elizabeth Cass denied the allegation. And a subsequent witness supported her version of events.

Yes, that is why I said in #190: "Just to be clear: that was the allegation, I don't say it was necessarily true."

I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether allegation was true, I'm saying it wasn't enough simply to have been an unaccompanied female walking along the street to be arrested. It was the fact that the constable was believed to have done this which caused such an outcry. But anyone, male or female, can be arrested today for walking along the street in broad daylight if the arresting officer fabricates evidence or has made a mistake of identity.

[David Orsam]

But as you point out, the relevant section falls under "misconduct of police", so why do you say this couldn't be a misconduct issue?

But I didn't say that John. In fact, I said the opposite, i.e. "let's assume that the heading of the section does mean that it could lead to a charge of misconduct."

And if it was a misconduct issue, why do you say it couldn't amount to misconduct in public office?

Are you imagining things John? I didn't even address the issue of whether it could have amounted to misconduct in a public office.

And police officers could actually be prosecuted for misconduct in public office: see R v Wyatt (1703).

I have no idea why you are referring to R. v. Wyat (note spelling) when section 14 of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 would have been applicable to Mizen and the Police Code expressly refers to a Metropolitan Police officer being charged before a magistrate for neglect or violation of duty under the Police Acts.

[David Orsam]

Your interpretation of The Code makes no sense

No, exactly! That's the whole point. My interpretation is comparable to yours, namely a strictly literal interpretation of the police code which actually makes no sense. That's why it would not have applied to Mizen.

[David Orsam]

For instance, if you're saying that every time a police officer interviews a witness that amounts merely to a "conversation", then there are no circumstances when a police officer would be required to take down particulars. How on earth does that make any sense?

I have to pick up on this. In no conceivable meaning of the word "interview" could Mizen be said to have interviewed Cross and Paul that night. All that happened is that they spoke to him to report an incident.

As for the rest of it, there's no point discussing whether my interpretation makes sense because I'm saying that it makes as much sense as your interpretation.

[David Orsam]

The Code states that particulars should be taken in a criminal case. PC Mizen failed to take down Cross' particulars, or for that matter anyone's particulars, in a criminal case. Based on a strict interpretation, why was that not a breach of The Code?

As we've established, the code refers to "necessary" particulars. So failure to take particulars on its own is not a breach of the police code.

[Pierre]

As we've established, the code refers to "necessary" particulars. So failure to take particulars on its own is not a breach of the police code.

And now you will get a discussion about what was "necessary".

[David Orsam]

If a witness refused to give particulars they could be presumably arrested for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.

There is no such presumption, John, or anything like it and this comment suggests a certain amount of desperation on your part.

Have you read the Police Code under the heading of Obstruction of Justice and Police? Have you considered the wording of section 38 the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861?

Had you done so, you would have seen that there is no way that Mizen could have arrested the carmen for obstructing him in the execution of his duty.

[David Orsam]

How could there be any circumstances when an officer would know that a crime had occurred? For instance, even in a case where a victim is found with their throat cut, it could feasibly be a case of suicide or self defence. Based upon such an interpretation, The Code would be rendered meaningless. Why would the police devize a meaningless Code of Conduct?

You've obviously forgotten that suicide was a criminal offence in 1888 but, that aside, I said a long time ago that a police officer can be expected to know what a criminal case is when he sees one or has one reported to him.

We really don't need get involved in a philosophical conversation about what does it mean to "know" something but I merely note that the Police Code itself uses this wording under the heading of Apprehension where it says:

"Every individual, who either sees a felony committed or knows one has actually been committed, may arrest the offender...."

The same type of knowledge no doubt applies to a police officer whether assessing when a crime has occurred.

[David Orsam]

Finally, irrespective of The Code, why do you say PC Mizen's conduct could not feasibly have amounted to a neglect of duty?

Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. Everything I have said has been in the context of the Code - so I haven't said anything "irrespective of the Code" - especially not that Mizen's conduct "could not feasibly" have amounted to a neglect of duty.

If you want to discuss the situation outside of the Code, and you think that Mizen's conduct feasibly amounted to a a neglect of duty regardless of the Code, then you need to state your case so that I can consider it.

[David Orsam]

I would also point out, David, that I have consistently argued that the intention might not have been for The Code to be strictly applied.

You've been arguing lots of things John, including that "On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liability."

In the final analysis, the issue is whether PC Mizen considered that he might realistically have faced misconduct charges, or some other form of disciplinary action.

The problem is that we then have to get inside Mizen's head. Surely we need to look at the situation objectively in which case we can see that there was no reasonable possibility of him facing misconduct charges or other form of disciplinary action according to the Police Code. That being so, it's hard to believe that he would realistically have been worried in any way.

If you have any other reason to think that Mizen would have been worried about his failure to take the mens' details then please tell us what it is.

As far as I can see, this entire argument is a wholly modern one which was never made by anyone in 1888, despite various criticisms of the police in the press.

[David Orsam]

Considering The Code's requirement, under the heading Misconduct of Police, that an officer could be in breach for "neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars in a criminal case, or case of accident."

Who ultimately determines what are "necessary names and addresses?" It can't be the officer in question, otherwise they could simply argue that they didn't deem it necessary to take down names and addresses, and this element of the The Code would be rendered completely meaningless. No, logically it has to be the officer's superiors who would ultimately decide what was "necessary". And, in such circumstances, PC Mizen could not know for sure that he wouldn't be held in breach of The Code, or that he wouldn't face possible misconduct charges for neglect of duty.

Let's not lose sight of why I stressed the word "necessary". It was to demonstrate to you that one could not possibly apply the concept of "strict liability" to the part of the Police Code under discussion. That is because some form of human judgement needs to be introduced into the scenario.

Consequently, my argument was that Mizen would not automatically have got into trouble simply because it turned out that the woman who had been reported to him as dead or dying had actually been murdered.

The meaning of the word "necessary" is, therefore, irrelevant because once we accept that, for Mizen, it wasn't a criminal case or an accident at the time the report was made to him that is the end of it. He wasn't required to take ANY particulars full stop.

[drstrange169]

>>so then I guess hes dammed if he did, dammed if he didn't. Critisized for continuing to knock up and not going quick enough, or not going at all or going. Poor guy cant catch a break.<<

When constabulary duties to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not a happy one .