Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Misconduct prosecution relating to historical abuse.

Options
  • 23-05-2021 6:36pm
    #1
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,465 ✭✭✭


    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-47812194

    At a trial in 2019, five former prison officers were convicted in relation to the abuse of detainees at the Medomsley detention centre in County Durham in England. All of them were imprisoned - three of them for misconduct in public office, even though they were acquitted of wounding or assault (physical or sexual or both).

    How does it make sense to acquit defendants who were in positions of trust of physical or sexual assault but convict them of misconduct in public office?

    Defendants in such cases are either guilty of criminal wrongdoing or they're not.

    If abuse of detainees constituted misconduct in public office in this case then why find them guilty on the misconduct charge but not guilty on actual charges of physical and/or sexual abuse? The jury seems to have given contradictory verdicts in this case.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,465 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Perhaps this document helps to answer my question.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/958527/Misconduct-in-public-office-WEB11.pdf

    In Chapter 2 of that document, under the sub-heading "Revival of the offence in the 21st Century", reasons for increase in prosecutions on the charge of misconduct in public office include:

    . A single charge may be used to reflect an entire course of conduct.

    . it may be used to reflect serious misconduct that is truly "criminal" but which cannot be satisfactorily reflected by any other offence.


  • Options
    #3
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,145 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    political analyst wrote: »
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-47812194

    At a trial in 2019, five former prison officers were convicted in relation to the abuse of detainees at the Medomsley detention centre in County Durham in England. All of them were imprisoned - three of them for misconduct in public office, even though they were acquitted of wounding or assault (physical or sexual or both).

    How does it make sense to acquit defendants who were in positions of trust of physical or sexual assault but convict them of misconduct in public office?

    Defendants in such cases are either guilty of criminal wrongdoing or they're not.

    If abuse of detainees constituted misconduct in public office in this case then why find them guilty on the misconduct charge but not guilty on actual charges of physical and/or sexual abuse? The jury seems to have given contradictory verdicts in this case.
    You'd need to look in detail at the evidence and at the various offences charged.

    Each of the offences will be made up of a number of factual elements, all of which have to be proven by evidence. Since different offences have different factual elements, it's entirely possible that the evidence present satisfactorily proved all of the elements of some of the offences charged (result: conviction) but did not prove some of the elements of other offences (result: acquittal).

    In this case, per the BBC report, three officers were convicted:

    One was convicted of assault and wounding with intent.

    One was convicted for assault and misconduct in public office.

    And one was convicted for miscounduct in public office.

    Guessing here, since the facts are not given, but the misconduct convictions are likely to be for behaviour such as witnessing/knowing about assaults but failing to do what your employment duties required of you in such a situation, or actively doing things to conceal, cover up, enable perpetrators to avoid punishment, etc.


  • Options
    #4
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,465 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You'd need to look in detail at the evidence and at the various offences charged.

    Each of the offences will be made up of a number of factual elements, all of which have to be proven by evidence. Since different offences have different factual elements, it's entirely possible that the evidence present satisfactorily proved all of the elements of some of the offences charged (result: conviction) but did not prove some of the elements of other offences (result: acquittal).

    In this case, per the BBC report, three officers were convicted:

    One was convicted of assault and wounding with intent.

    One was convicted for assault and misconduct in public office.

    And one was convicted for miscounduct in public office.

    Guessing here, since the facts are not given, but the misconduct convictions are likely to be for behaviour such as witnessing/knowing about assaults but failing to do what your employment duties required of you in such a situation, or actively doing things to conceal, cover up, enable perpetrators to avoid punishment, etc.

    The report said that Onslow, who was the physical training officer at Medomsley, and two others - McGee and Blakely - were jailed and that two others were yet to be sentenced.

    The two others were also jailed.

    https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/medomsley-detention-centre-greenwell-bramley-16149545
    Greenwell showed no emotion as he was given a sentence of two-and-a-half years, while Bramley was jailed for 18 months.

    Prosecutor Jamie Hill QC said of the pair: "They not only embraced the culture of violence that existed at Medomsley, but enhanced it.

    "Individuals cannot simply abdicate individual responsibility and say that they were obeying orders or following a culture that already existed."

    An ITV article:

    https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2019-04-18/two-former-medomsley-prison-officers-jailed-over-physical-abuse-on-boys
    Greenwell was at Medomsley between 1973 and 1988, and acted as a stand-in chef for part of that time.

    His misconduct conviction included evidence he dragged an inmate semi-naked from the toilet, caused injuries by throwing a bread basket at a boy's head, and knocked another boy semi-conscious with a punch.

    The court was told that Greenwell received the Imperial Service Medal from the Queen in 2002, reflecting his charity work.

    Bramley was a discipline officer at Medomsley between 1973 and 1977, and later became a governor at several other prisons.

    The misconduct charge for which he was convicted included evidence that he assaulted a number of inmates, inflicting punches, kicks, and striking a boy with a key chain.

    How the details of the misconduct charges didn't meet any of the elements necessary for convictions for acts of physical abuse, I just don't know.


Advertisement