The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[drstrange169]

>>He "couldn't possibly know" there was a woman in Bucks Row? Really? <<

Yes really.

Mizen encountered a situation that required trust on his part, yet we have no record of him taking the kind of steps i have already described to reassure his trust enough to make a reasoned decision.

Duffin had visual stimulation to make his decisions, as I keep writing, different situations.

[drstrange169]

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

I don't believe I ever claimed he did.



>>And it doesn't change the fact that the man told Duffin a direct lie does it?<<

See above answer.

[drstrange169]

>>No, it doesn't come down to that. What I am saying is that an officer had no right to arrest an unaccompanied woman for walking down the street
... I'm saying that wasn't enough.<<

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

Rules are one thing, how people actually implement them is another thing altogether.

[drstrange169]

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

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

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[Abby Normal]

>>So you are saying mizen was wrong then to leave his beat?<<

I'm saying he left himself open to criticism.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Neither Mizen or this PC did anything wrong. They didn't break any rules, laws, "police code", or even moral issues.

They weren't reprimanded or punished by the police for anything.

Time to put a lid on it.

[John G]

John - leaving aside that you are confusing the legal concept of "strict liability" with your odd, literal interpretation of the police code, the code does not actually say what you have represented it to say.

The actual wording of the code (under the heading "Misconduct of Police") is this:

"1.The following are the faults most likely to be committed, and against which the young constables should particularly guard, for entries on the defaulter sheet in the first years of service will materially reduce the possibility of eventual promotion for the prizes of the service:-

...

(27) Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or case of accident."

It doesn't actually state that neglecting to obtain names is misconduct, only that constables should guard against such neglect to avoid being passed over for promotion. However, let's assume that the heading of the section does mean that it could lead to a charge of misconduct. Can this be interpreted in a way consistent with one might want to call "strict liability"? The answer is no it can't.

For look at the wording. It says that the offence is neglecting to obtain "necessary" names etc. So a judgement is required here by someone to decide what names are necessary. There cannot, in other words, possibly be any kind of automatic punishment for failing to take names because someone first has to decide what names are necessary.

Then there are other issues of interpretation of the code:

Firstly, it doesn't say which officer is required to take the names and particulars. Why should it have been Mizen? Strictly speaking it could apply to every officer in London or none of them. Indeed, as soon as a crime occurs anywhere in London, on your view, officers should be running around taking particulars of everyone they can find even if they don't even know of the occurrence of the crime!!

If you say, oh it only applies to officers present at the scene that is already moving away from a strict literal interpretation but even if you take that view then what about Neil and Thain. Why didn't they knock on doors and take particulars of the local residents? Did they note the names and addresses of everyone who subsequently walked down Bucks Row? if so why did Neil refer at the inquest to "a man who had passed down Buck's row while the doctor was present". Why didn't he take HIS name? Was his failure to do so a breach of the Police Code? It was clearly a criminal case so, on your strict interpretation, he and Thain were required to take names and addresses.

Secondly, it doesn't say particulars should be taken when a criminal case or accident is reported to an officer does it? So why should Mizen have taken the names of two men who reported a criminal case to him (had they actually done so). The Code does not state that when someone reports a criminal case the officer should take that person's details. So on "strict liability", Mizen is totally in the clear.

Thirdly, what happened in the case of Mizen was two men coming up to speak to him. That itself was not a criminal case or an accident. It was a conversation. The code does not say anything about recording details of people who an officer converses with in the street. So following the code, on your "strict liability", there was nothing for Mizen to do.

Fourthly, the code does not say when the particulars need to be taken. Now its obvious what it means but if one is strictly interpreting the code, Mizen had an unlimited amount of time to track down Cross and Paul and ask them for their particulars.

Finally what happened if the witness refused to give particulars? No-one was obliged to give details to a police officer upon request. But on your interpretation if the officer failed to obtain the details he was automatically guilty of misconduct!!!! It's pure Alice in Wonderland stuff.

That is why, John, your interpretation of the police code is ridiculous. It doesn't apply any common sense or relate to the real world. The simple fact is that an officer couldn't be guilty of not taking details in a criminal case when he didn't know that a crime had actually occurred.

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? And if it was a misconduct issue, why do you say it couldn't amount to misconduct in public office? And police officers could actually be prosecuted for misconduct in public office: see R v Wyatt (1703).

Your interpretation of The Code makes no sense, as it requires a purely abstract analysis. 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?

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?

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

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?

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

[John G]

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. 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.

[John G]

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.

[David Orsam]

Off the top of my head, exactly where the body was, what did they see, why a policeman needed him, where were they going? etc etc

In other words, the basics a policeman would be expected to ask.

Seems to me like you are struggling. Mizen didn't need to know "exactly" where the body was, having been told it was in Bucks Row, they already told him what they saw (a woman lying in the street), it was obvious why a policeman needed him and equally obvious that the two men were going to work. So all those questions would have been a waste of time. They are certainly not questions that anyone would have expected Mizen to ask in the circumstances.

[David Orsam]

If I am, then I don't know I am, because that is definitely not what my brain is telling me.

I see two different scenarios that you appear to be trying to draw tenuous links to.

They are different scenarios with some obvious similar features which you are pretending not to be able to see.

[David Orsam]

Because a "husband" should be with his wife, where he could be of practical use by offering comfort if she regained consciousness and by answering necessary questions.

Whereas, anybody could fetch medical help. Duffin, of course, should have known exactly where he nearest medical help was.

None of those issues would be of concern to a police officer. If the husband wanted to get medical help for his wife, a police officer had no right or grounds to stop him doing so.

[David Orsam]

I don't believe Xmere lied and I don't believe the police believed Xmere lied.

With regards to "top hat" we have no information to suggest that he was telling the truth.

So, no similarity, for me, there.

I don't know what "we have no information to suggest that "Top Hat" man was telling the truth" actually means, but she was a widow, so he can't possibly have been her husband, so he lied.

I can understand that you might not think that Mizen did, in fact, lie but that of course is to miss the point.

Can you answer this Dusty: Assuming that Mizen did lie about there being a police officer in Bucks Row, and that Top Hat man did lie about being the woman's husband, would you not admit that there is then a similarity between the two scenarios in that, in each case, a man lied to a police officer as he walked away from the scene of an incident which involved a woman lying on the ground?

[David Orsam]

Yes really.

Mizen encountered a situation that required trust on his part, yet we have no record of him taking the kind of steps i have already described to reassure his trust enough to make a reasoned decision.

Duffin had visual stimulation to make his decisions, as I keep writing, different situations.

You think he should have carried out a full investigation of the situation before proceeding to Bucks Row? Okay.

Of course, he wouldn't have been criticised for any delay, both in interrupting his knocking up to carry out the investigation and in not going directly to Bucks Row.