The Guardian said in a report that the ruling of the "lawful killing" of a British man by police has been legally challenged by a close relative. Pamela Duggan, whose son Mark was fatally shot by armed police in a 2011 incident and sparked a civil unrest in the UK, insisted to fight the family's belief that her innocent son was executed.
Reuters said that although the 10-person jury declared that the 29 year-old Duggan had a gun in his possession while in a taxi that was carrying him before he was spotted by police, eight of them thought that he did not have the weapon in his possession when he was shot.
The Duggan matriarch has accused presiding Judge Keith Cutler of acting unlawfully in his directions to the jury in her son's case. The UK newspaper said that after the court has heard evidence about Duggan's killing for three months last year, the inquest jury was asked to consider whether he was killed unlawfully, lawfully or whether the jury should return an open verdict. Cutler was the appointed deputy coroner for the inquest, said the Guardian.
Moreover, the Duggans through their legal team have sought the high court to replace the verdict with an open verdict, which means ordering a fresh inquest to the case and quashing the conclusions of the previous inquest.
The legal representation of the Duggans believed that Cutler should have directed the jury that they cannot return a verdict of lawful killing as they have decided that Mark did not have a gun in his possession at the time of the fatal shooting. Duggans' legal camp insisted that it was the coroner's duty to prevent the jury from coming up with an inconsistent conclusion since there was no sufficient evidence with regard to Mark reportedly being armed at the time of the shooting.
Referring to the person who fatally shot Duggan, court papers filed by the Duggans' legal camp with the High Court read, "V53 could not have known what the gun looked like. V53 must have been making these details up after the event, having later seen the gun. V53 had a clear, unobstructed and prolonged view of what Mark was holding. There was no evidence V53 had any good reason to think Mark was holding a gun."
The Guardian quoted Pamela Duggan, who said about the family's legal request, "We have asked the court for permission to challenge the inquest's findings as part of our continuing quest for justice for Mark. I am particularly distressed that the officer who killed Mark can return to work. I don't want to see any other mothers losing their sons at the hands of the police in the way that I lost Mark."
© 2023 Lawyer Herald All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Get the Most Popular Lawyerherald Stories in a Weekly Newsletter
Join the Discussion
