DOCSLIB.ORG

References Ready for Transfer to WORD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
References Ready for Transfer to WORD City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: McIntosh, S. (2016). Open justice and investigations into deaths at the hands of the police, or in police or prison custody. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/15340/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Open Justice and Investigations into Deaths at the Hands of the Police, or in Police or Prison Custody By Sam McIntosh PhD Candidate CITY UNIVERSITY, LONDON LAW SCHOOL FEBRUARY 2016 i CONTENTS Table of Contents ii Table of Cases (England and Wales) x Table of Cases (ECtHR and ECmHR) xii Table of Cases (other Jurisdictions) xiv Table of Statutes and Bills xvi Table of Statutory Instruments xix List of Inquest and Inquiry Directions, Orders, Submissions and Transcripts xxi Acknowledgments xxiv Publications During Candidature xxv Abstract xxvi List of Abbreviations xxvii Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the study 2 1.2 Aim 5 1.3 Scope 6 1.3.1 The types of death which form the focus of the study 6 1.3.2 The types of investigation which form the focus of the study 7 1.3.3 Justice theory 7 1.4 Methodology 8 1.5 Chapter outline 9 PART 1 – Practice Chapter 2 – ECtHR Jurisprudence on Article 2’s Procedural Obligation 15 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 McCann v UK – The beginnings of a procedural obligation under Article 2 18 ECHR 2.3 Kaya v Turkey – The need for independence and public scrutiny 20 2.4 Ergi v Turkey – The burden to initiate an investigation falls on the state 22 ii 2.5 Powell v UK and Tarariyeva v Russia – Article 2 and failures on the part of 22 healthcare workers 2.6 Salman v Turkey – The burden on the state to explain deaths in custody 27 2.7 Keenan v UK – Responsibility for self-inflicted deaths in prison 28 2.8 Jordan et al v UK – The essential elements of the procedural obligation are 30 confirmed 2.8.1 The facts in brief 30 2.8.1.1 Jordan v UK 30 2.8.1.2 Kelly v UK 31 2.8.1.3 McKerr v UK 31 2.8.1.4 Shanaghan v UK 32 2.8.2 The law 33 2.8.3 Application to the cases 35 2.8.3.1 The police investigations – Effectiveness 36 2.8.3.2 The police investigations – Openness and independence 36 2.8.3.3 The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions 37 2.8.3.4 McKerr and The Stalker/Sampson Inquiry 37 2.8.3.5 The inquests – Effectiveness 38 2.8.3.6 The inquests – The public nature of proceedings and access for next-of-kin 39 2.8.3.7 The inquests – Delay 40 2.9 Edwards v UK – Openness and the public interest in cases 40 2.10 Nachova v Bulgaria – The test for whether force is lawful 42 2.11 Oneryildiz v Turkey – Some clarity on Article 13 and an “effective judicial 43 system” 2.12 Ramsahai v Netherlands – There can be a breach of Article 2 even where a 45 killing is lawful 2.13 Al-Skeini v UK – The procedural obligation where investigators are 47 hindered by circumstance 2.14 Conclusions 48 Chapter 3 – Preliminary Investigations 53 3.1 Introduction 54 3.2 Deaths in prison 54 iii 3.2.1 Police investigations into prison deaths 54 3.2.1.1 Openness and liaison with family, community and public 56 3.2.1.2 Disclosure to other investigating bodies 60 3.2.2. PPO investigations into prison deaths 61 3.2.2.1 Openness to family, public and other investigatory bodies 62 3.3 IPCC investigations into deaths involving police 66 3.3.1 The review of the IPCC’s work in investigating deaths 68 3.3.2 The scope of IPCC investigations 69 3.3.2.1. The IPCC’s powers, remit and competence 70 3.3.3 Family liaison and openness 72 3.3.3.1 Openness to the family 73 3.3.3.2 Liaison with the general public 75 3.4 Conclusions 77 Chapter 4 – The Evolving Nature and Purposes of Inquests 81 4.1 Introduction 82 4.2 The early history of the inquest 83 4.3 Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century inquests 85 4.3.1 Inquests into deaths in prison 86 4.4 The evolving constitutional significance of inquests 88 4.5 Thomas Wakley and the inquest as radical theatre 92 4.5.1 Thomas Wakley 93 4.5.2 The inquest into the death of John Lees 97 4.6 Ongoing tensions about the openness of nineteenth-century inquests 102 4.7 Separating inquests from the criminal and civil justice systems 105 4.8 A changing society 110 4.9 Failing inquests: Blair Peach, the Deptford fire and Jamieson 111 4.9.1 Blair Peach 113 4.9.2 New Cross/Deptford fire 115 4.9.3 What it means to know 'how' someone died – Jamieson 118 4.10 Conclusions 121 iv Chapter 5 – Modern Inquests and Inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 123 5.1 The scope and openness of modern inquests 125 5.1.1 The inquest as the forum for fulfilling Article 2 125 5.1.2 The purposes and scope of Article 2 compliant inquests 125 5.1.2.1 Amin – The purpose of an Article 2 compliant investigation 126 5.1.2.2 Middleton – The scope of an Article 2 compliant inquest 128 5.1.3 How inquests are open to the public 130 5.1.3.1 Openness to public and press attending and observing proceedings 131 5.1.3.2 The openness of inquests to the active participation of the public 132 5.1.3.3 Who are ‘the public’ in inquests? 135 5.1.4 Disclosure 136 5.1.5 Public funding for families’ legal representation 139 5.1.6 Public interest immunity 143 5.2 Azelle Rodney, secret evidence and the Inquiries Act 2005 144 5.2.1 Comparing inquiries to inquests 149 5.2.1.1 The scope of inquiries 149 5.2.1.2 Openness of inquiries to the participation of the family of deceased 150 5.2.1.3 The openness of inquiries to the public and press observing proceedings 151 5.2.1.4 The manner in which inquiries conclude 153 5.2.2 The Azelle Rodney Inquiry 156 5.2.2.1 Restrictions on the openness of the Azelle Rodney Inquiry 158 5.3 Conclusions 164 PART 2 – Theory Chapter 6 – Harm in the Aftermath of Deaths at the Hands of the State 169 6.1 Introduction 170 6.2 Justice 170 6.2.1 Justice in inquests and related processes 170 6.2.2 Rectificatory versus primary justice 171 6.3 Negative morality 173 6.3.1 Defining ‘moral harm’ 173 6.3.2 What is a negative morality approach? 175 v 6.4 Potential harms in the aftermath of a death 178 6.4.1 First-order harms 179 6.4.1.1 Family associated first-order bare harms 179 6.4.1.2 First-order moral harms 180 6.4.1.3 Conclusions on first-order harms 181 6.4.2 Second-order harms 182 6.4.2.1 Injustice surrounding perceived failures of the criminal and/or civil justice 183 systems 6.4.2.2 Moral harms related to the narrative surrounding a death 183 6.4.2.3 Some illustrative examples of the expression of these types of moral harm 187 6.4.3 Justice discourses which appear to address analogous harms 191 Chapter 7 – Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Justice as Recognition 193 7.1 Introduction 194 7.2 Procedural justice 194 7.2.1 The relationship between procedures and outcomes 195 7.2.2 Intrinsic versus instrumental values of procedures 197 7.2.3 Procedural justice and legitimacy 200 7.2.3.1 What is legitimacy? 201 7.2.3.2 Political legitimacy 204 7.2.4 Conclusion 206 7.3 Recognition theory 207 7.3.1 Introduction to recognition theory 207 7.3.2 The core content of theories of recognition 209 7.3.2.1 The observational element of recognition theory 210 7.3.2.2 Intersubjective relationships and the development of relations-to-self 210 Love and self-confidence 212 Rights and self-respect 213 Solidarity and self-esteem 215 7.3.2.3 The moral claims of recognition theories 217 7.4 Conclusion to Part 2 218 vi PART 3 – Synthesis Chapter 8 – Truth commissions 223 8.1 Introduction – The significance of ‘transitional justice’ debates to the thesis 224 8.2 What is ‘transitional justice’? 225 8.2.1 The different potential concerns of transitional justice 225 8.2.2 Important differences between truth commissions, and inquests and inquiries 227 8.3 Truth commissions 229 8.3.1 The quantitative aims of truth commissions 230 8.3.1.1 Truth discovery – factual judgments 231 8.3.1.2 An officially endorsed account 232 8.3.1.3 Narrative formation and listening to victims 235 8.3.1.4 Reaching moral judgments 236 8.3.1.5 Making recommendations 237 8.3.2 The qualitative goals of truth commissions 237 8.3.2.1 Are truth commissions just political compromises? 237 8.3.2.2 Restorative justice and Ubuntu 240 8.3.2.3 Truth as justice 242 8.3.2.4 Justice as recognition as a normative basis for justice strategies found in 246 truth commissions 8.4 Conclusion 252 Chapter 9 – A Context-Specific Conception of Open Justice 255 9.1 Introduction 256 9.2 The procedural manifestation of openness 259 9.2.1 When investigations are held 260 9.2.1.1 When preliminary investigations are held 260 9.2.1.2 When inquests are held 261 9.2.1.3 When inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 are held 261 9.2.1.4 The scope of preliminary investigations 262 9.2.1.5 The scope of inquests 263 9.2.1.6 Public interest immunity in inquests 264 vii 9.2.1.7 The scope of inquiries
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joint Committee on Human Rights
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Demonstrating Respect for Rights? Follow–up Twenty-second Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes and oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 14 July 2009 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 July 2009 HL Paper 141 HC 522 Published on 28 July 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead) Lord Dubs Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Lester of Herne Hill Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Abingdon) The Earl of Onslow Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Baroness Prashar Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe & Nantwich) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED Kingdompolitical Killings in Northern Ireland EUR 45/001/94 TABLE of CONTENTS
    UNITED KINGDOMPolitical Killings in Northern Ireland EUR 45/001/94 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Killings by members of the security forces ........................................................... 3 Investigative Procedures: practice and standards ...................................... 8 The Use of Lethal Force: Laws and Regulations/International Standards ..................................................................................... 12 Collusion between security forces and armed groups ........................................ 14 The Stevens Inquiry 1989-90 ..................................................................... 14 The Case of Brian Nelson .......................................................................... 16 The Killing of Patrick Finucane .................................................................. 20 The Stevens Inquiry 1993 .......................................................................... 23 Other Allegations of Collusion .................................................................... 25 Amnesty International's Concerns about Allegations of Collusion ............ 29 Killings by Armed Political Groups ...................................................................... 34 Introduction ................................................................................................. 34 Human Rights Abuses by Republican Armed Groups .............................. 35 IRA Bombings
    [Show full text]
  • THE APPARATUS of IMPUNITY? Human Rights Violations and the Northern Ireland Conflict: a Narrative of Official Limitations on Post-Agreement Investigative Mechanisms
    THE APPARATUS OF IMPUNITY? Human rights violations and the Northern Ireland conflict: a narrative of official limitations on post-Agreement investigative mechanisms Committee on the Administration of Justice January 2015 The Apparatus of Impunity? Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) © Committee on the Administration of Justice January 2015 The material may be reproduced, free of charge, in any format or medium without specific permission, provided the reproduction is not for financial or material gain.The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. If the material is to be republished or issued to others, acknowledgement must be given to its source, copyright status, and date of publication. This publication is available on our website. CAJ Committee on the Administration of Justice 2nd Floor, Sturgen Building 9-15 Queen Street Belfast BT1 6EA Tel: 028 9031 6000 Fax: 028 9031 4583 [email protected] www.caj.org.uk ISBN 978 1 873285 94 7 The Apparatus of Impunity? Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) THE APPARATUS OF IMPUNITY? Human rights violations and the Northern Ireland conflict: a narrative of official limitations on post-Agreement investigative mechanisms Committee on the Administration of Justice January 2015 The Apparatus of Impunity? Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) Recent comments from key Council of Europe and UN human rights bodies in relation to existing mechanisms investigating the conflict in Northern Ireland: The absence of any plausible explanation for the failure to collect key evidence at the time when this was possible, and for attempts to even obstruct this process, should be treated with particular vigilance.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHERN IRELAND Continued Abuses by All Sides
    March 1994 Vol. 6, No. 4 NORTHERN IRELAND Continued Abuses by all Sides CONTENTS Emergency laws ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Death connected with "The Troubles" ....................................................................................................................... 2 Investigation of the use of lethal force by security forces and prosecution of those responsible for killings ............................................................................................... 3 Collusion between security forces and loyalist paramilitaries ................................................................................... 5 Coroners' inquests ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Plastic bullets ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Ill-treatment in detention ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Right to a fair trial ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Harassment by security forces ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matchgirls’ Strike - Labour History Museum Pictures from Windscale Postcards Photography and the Law
    m f. Mm Postcard of YVindscale 1979 Mike Abrahams The Fashion Spread Blair Peach - No Cover Up Matchgirls’ Strike - Labour History Museum Pictures from Windscale Postcards Photography and the Law No 17 Half Moon Photography Workshop 60p/$1.75 CAMERAWORK 1 Lcs nouveau \ T-shirlvdcbjrdcurx rcsscmblcnt .i lout saufa la chcrrmc dev dockets: ils sapparenteni plutot aux maillots dc danseuses modcrncs uvee leurs munches longues, leurs prolonds decolleics.ou uus hauls dc tutus avee leurs brcielles ct leurcorsuttebusiier A gauche. T-shirt a munches longues en jersey de colon dc Jjck>tcx. ci sa jupc portclcuillc cn jersey dc colon rouge reversible rosede Jack vies, Gianni Versace pour Callaghan SanJ.ilcs Charles Jourdan A df.. T-shirt bustier cn jersey de coion ct sa jupc fronccc cn mcme jersey. Dominique Peelers pourGuilare Sandalcs Charles Jourdan Au centre, bustier a brcielles cn jersey de coion cl short assorti. (juitarc. Coiffures Valentin pour Jcan-l OW9 DlV <1 Maquillagcs Lancaster: tcints hales ct unil'ics avee Visage Bmn/c. Photo prise a I'I Intel I oniainebleau a Miami Bench. Tics gai. pour lous les instants dc voire v ie: “CabriolcT le nouveau parluni dbli/ubctli Arden. Guy Bourdin, French Vogue May 1978: To turn the page is not only to open and close the spectacle of the fashion spread but to cut up the figure with which we are spatially identified - to open and close her legs. Fashion photography as anonymous history graphers are inclined to regard the economic and techno­ familiar. Perhaps what is needed is what Siegfried Gideon Fashion photography is traditionally regarded as the light­ logical processes as a ‘threat’ to their domain - the taking of calls ‘anonymous history’: an account of the effects of tech­ weight end of photographic practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributed to Sean Rigg's Death
    Analysis UK: Police force “more than minimally” contributed to Sean Rigg’s death Trevor Hemmings The jury condemned a catalogue of police failings and refuted the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. The circumstances of Rigg's death highlight the disproportionate treatment of black people by police and the difficulty of holding officers accountable for their actions. At the beginning of August 2012 a jury at Southwark Coroners Court delivered a highly critical narrative verdict at the inquest into the death of Sean Rigg, a black musician who died following contact with the police on 21 August 2008. After listening to seven weeks of evidence the jury unequivocally rejected the account given by police officers and in so doing refuted the findings of an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCC). The jury found that the 40-year died at Brixton police station as the result of a cardiac arrest (and acute arrhythmia, ischemia and partial positional asphyxia) following a series of errors by the South London and Maudsley (SLAM) NHS Trust and the Metropolitan police. Coroner Dr Andrew Harris had ruled out verdicts of unlawful killing and neglect, but the jury said that the inaction of the NHS Trust and the actions of Brixton police had “more than minimally contributed to Sean Rigg’s death.” [1] The jury’s findings were greeted with spontaneous applause from the public gallery and praised by the Coroner who told its members: “You have demonstrated perspicacity and attention to detail in exercising your duty.” On the Inquisition form, the jurors had crossed out King’s College Hospital as the place of death and replaced it with Brixton police station – confirming the argument made by Sean’s family over the last four years that he had died on the floor of the police station [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2011/12
    Community-Police Consultative Group for Lambeth Artists courtesy of www.paintshopstudio.com Annual Report 2011/12 Have Your Say on Policing in London Annual Report 2011/12 Contents Page Chair's Report………………………..……………………………………………………..…………....2 Stop and Search Sub-Group Report…………………………………………………………………...8 Mental Health Sub-Group Report……………………………………………………………………..14 Safer Neighbourhood Panels' Report…………………………………………………………………15 Honorary Comptroller's Report………………………………………………………….……………..17 Finance…………………………………………………………………………………………………...22 including Annual Accounts Appendix: Membership….…………………………………………………………………………..….25 www.lambethcpcg.org.uk 1 Annual Report 2011/12 Chair’s Report During my time with the CPCG Lambeth I have seen many a cause championed and dire situations rescued with our intervention. I was also privileged to witness the creation of The Lambeth Black Families Forum (LBFF) this year chaired by our very own Sandra Moodie and Vince McBean from The West Indian and ex Service Personnel (WASP) and supported by Lambeth Police and the Council. An Inspirational moment In April 2011 saw: Ivelaw Bowman, Cheryl Sealy and Wesley Stephenson honoured by Operation Trident Occupational Command Unit with Commendations for work above and beyond the call. This was a moment where we all publicly acknowledged CPCG for Lambeth and the work we do as we believe: 'the group is the group and we stand for something together' I have seen the tears and despair of families coping with the loss of loved ones gunned down or tragically stabbed in their prime due to gang or area code issues or death following police contact. More alarmingly, is the on-going question of our youth service and the youth clubs available to them as their environment seems to be vanishing right before their eyes.
    [Show full text]
  • Health and Adult Services Scrutiny Sub- Committee
    b HEALTH AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY SUB- COMMITTEE Date and Time: Tuesday 23 October 2012 7.00 pm Venue : Council Chamber, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW Contact for enquiries: Website: Anne Rasmussen www.lambeth.gov.uk/committee Democratic Services Officer Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 0028 Lambeth Council – Democracy Live Fax: 020 7926 2361 on Facebook Email: [email protected] http://www.facebook.com/ Governance and Democracy @LBLdemocracy on Twitter Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy London, SW2 1RW To tweet about Council agendas, minutes or meetings use #Lambeth Despatched: Monday 15 October 2012 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Councillors KINGSBURY, MARCHANT (Vice-Chair), FRANCIS, DAVIE (Chair) and C. WHELAN SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors O'MALLEY, PATIL, DAVIES, BROWN, J.WHELAN and COSGRAVE AGENDA PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING Page Nos. 1. Declarations of Pecuniary Interests 2. Minutes of Previous Meeting 1 - 8 To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2012 as a correct record of the proceedings. 3. St George's Healthcare NHS Trust - Inquest into the death of 9 - 18 Kane Gorny (Report no. 129/12-13) Contact for details: Elaine Carter, Lead Scrutiny Officer, 020 7926 0027, [email protected] 4. South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust - Inquest into 19 - 30 the death of Sean Rigg (Report no. 135/12-13) Contact for details: Elaine Carter, Lead Scrutiny Officer, 020 7926 0027, [email protected] 5. The Annual Report of Lambeth Safeguarding Adult Partnership 31 - 124 Board 2011-2012 (Report no.
    [Show full text]
  • IPCC 17.05.13 FULL Independent External Review Report
    Report of the independent external review of the IPCC investigation into the death of Sean Rigg Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. 1 The cause of death .................................................................................................................................... 2 Investigation and analysis.......................................................................................................................... 3 Police conduct........................................................................................................................................... 3 Restraint.................................................................................................................................................... 3 The question of assault by the police......................................................................................................... 4 Identification of Mr Rigg............................................................................................................................ 4 Custody and care at the police station ....................................................................................................... 6 Medical care.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Call handling.............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the Disturbances of August 2011
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 Sixteenth Report of Session 2010–12 Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 22 December 2011 Published on 22 December 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. Mr Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, Cannock Chase) Mary Macleod MP (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Critical Document Submission
    Documentary practice as radical process in challenging dominant media and state narratives FERO, Kenneth Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/23304/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version FERO, Kenneth (2018). Documentary practice as radical process in challenging dominant media and state narratives. Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk Documentary Practice as Radical Process in Challenging Dominant Media and State Narratives Kenneth Fero Critical Appraisal submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on the Basis of Published Work. June 2018 Contents Abstract 2 Defiance 3 Framing the Approach 4 Connectivity 5 Commitment 7 Visualising Resistance 10 Defining Identity 11 Ideologies 33 Impact 37 Current Practice 45 Bibliography 50 Page 1 Abstract This critical appraisal of the submitted work outlines my position within radical documentary film making from Britain’s Black Legacy (1991) to Burn (2014). Exploring the works in relation to the political concerns during the periods of the time of practice, the notion of an uncompromising ‘documentary of force’ develops throughout the portfolio. Moving from broadcast interventions, thorough Third Cinema practices and explorations of ‘poetic testimonies’ the works use a hybrid of documentarist modes determined by the context of the time. A praxis develops using documentary film to utilise strategies of political, cultural, and cinematic interventions to build on latent militancy and challenge dominant media and state narratives on the core issues of race, class and state violence.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf, 511.2 Kb
    IN THE UNDERCOVER POLICING INQUIRY OPENING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF CORE PARTICIPANTS SET OUT IN AN ANNEX REPRESENTED BY HODGE JONES & ALLEN, BHATT MURPHY AND BINDMANS SOLICITORS INTRODUCTION 1. This opening statement is made on behalf of over 100 individuals and groups, all of whom are Core Participants in this Inquiry. 2. All of them were subjected to undercover police surveillance that was inappropriate, improperly regulated, and abused their rights. They want answers from this Inquiry and ask that this Inquiry makes recommendations that prevent this experience happening to others. 3. These Core Participants come from a wide variety of backgrounds, ages, ethnicities and political views. But they all share an outrage at the experience each of them suffered. They deserve answers for the experiences they suffered through undercover policing to which none of them should have been subjected. Those officers and their supervisors, who committed that wrongdoing must be called to account, as must be the system that permitted it. 4. The experiences of these Core Participants spans more than a 40 year period from 1968 to the present date. They are people who campaigned – and still campaign – on a variety of different issues. Some have remained community activists, others have continued to seek justice for family members who were killed. Others have become senior political figures – including Members of Parliament, and a member of the House of Lords who is also a former Secretary of State. 5. A common feature that unites their experience is that the police surveillance to which they were subjected was not merely out of control, but was politicised.
    [Show full text]