Month: January 2010

Larry Fedja

Inquests fail to restrain the police

Police Officers On Dutyfrom the Mikey Powell Campaign
9th January 2010

The following is the full unedited version of an article written by Simon Hattenstone.

Simon Hattenstone is a writer for the Guardian, and the following article has been produced on this site with his consent.

………………………………………………………………….

See version published on The Guardian website >
(originally published: 27th December 2009)

Last Friday an inquest reached a shocking conclusion, though you’d be hard pressed to have heard about it. In a damning narrative verdict, the jury concluded that Mikey Powell had died from positional asphyxia following police restraint.

Continue reading

4WardEverUK

Correction: Press Release

Document FilesNote: This update should be read in conjunction with the original Press Release page.

We will update this and other press releases as and when necessary…

see all Press Release pages >

…………………………………………………………………

Latest Amendment:

A small but important error has been pointed out:

Question 3 that was put to the jury by the Coroner read
If you have found that the cause of death was either Exertional sudden death in association with Sickle Cell trait or positional asphyxia, on the balance of probabilities did he become more vulnerable to suffering death in the way you have found as a result of one or more of the following:-

Continue reading

Tippa Naphtali

Powell family makes Rule 43 recommendations

Reports & Filesfrom the Friends of Mikey Powell Campaign for Justice
2nd January 2010

The following are the recommendations under Rule 43 * put to the Coroner by the family’s legal representatives following the jury verdict on 18th December 2009.

These recommendations are compiled not only in relation to Mikey’s case but to other similar cases both in the West Midlands region and nationally.

* About Rule 43

Under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules (as amended with effect from 17 July 2008) Where:

  • a coroner is holding an inquest into a person’s death;
  • the evidence gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future; and
  • in the coroner’s opinion, action should be taken to prevent the occurrence or continuation of such circumstances, or to eliminate or reduce the risk of death created by such circumstances,

The coroner may report the circumstances to a person who the coroner believes may have power to take such action”.

Continue reading