Wednesday 8 December 2010

Sorry, But The Police Aren’t Totally On The Hook For This One…

The police watchdog has criticised Essex Police for its handling of the case of a woman murdered by her ex-boyfriend.
OK. And the details?
The IPCC report said that in July 2008, Chivers assaulted Ms Stubbings and a risk assessment was carried out by Essex Police and Chivers was considered a "very high risk perpetrator".

In October 2008 he was convicted of assaulting Miss Stubbings and received a four-month jail sentence but as he had already served time on remand he was released immediately.
Ah. Right. Not sure how that’s the fault of the police, though.

Perhaps someone needs to point a few fingers at the laxity of the criminal justice system?
Chivers had previously been convicted of the murder of a girlfriend in Germany in 1993 and had served 15 years in jail before being deported back to the UK.

Police knew of the conviction and the fact Chivers had been convicted for an assault of Ms Stubbings, but did not have the legal powers to impose the normal restrictions on someone convicted of a murder because it was committed abroad.
Not sure how that’s the fault of the police, either. Once again, it’s down to the criminal justice system to ensure that, should such powers be considered necessary, they are made available.

Until they are, well....
Had Chivers committed the first murder in the UK he would have been on life licence following his release, and on his conviction for assault in July 2008 he could have been recalled to prison.
And if my auntie had testicles, she’d be my uncle.
On 11 December 2008 Ms Stubbings called police to report a burglary at her house which she suspected had been carried out by Chivers.

The next day police found Ms Stubbings' 15-year-old son in a car with Chivers and took him home.

Police officers witnessed her shock and saw her say to her son "you know what he's done".
Sooooo…it doesn’t sound like the whole family is totally onboard with the dire, obvious threat presented by Mr Chivers, does it?
The following day she informed police that she did not want to pursue the burglary report
So they should have ignored this? And followed it up anyway?
The IPCC found that when Ms Stubbings reported that Chivers had been in her house, the initial call taker failed to record the correct address which meant that any alerts attached to her address were not accessed.

No further checks were undertaken and the call was wrongly treated as a report of a burglary rather than a domestic violence matter.

The IPCC said the call handler should face action for poor performance.
For what might have been a simple typo, for all we know? And for not overruling the wishes of the complainant and regarding this as more than a burglary?

Tell me, apart from Chivers’ background, how does this case (so far) seem any different from the messy nature of the sort of calls described by Gadget in his blog?
At some point between 16 and 19 December 2008, Chivers murdered Ms Stubbings.

A planned police visit to Ms Stubbings' home on 17 December did not take place because the female officer said she could not find anyone to accompany her.
No doubt force policy. Are any senior officers getting it in the neck for this, or just front-line workers?
On 18 December two police officers went to the house where Chivers said Ms Stubbings was staying with friends and he was looking after the home, despite her car being on the drive.
Because it’s not like she might have taken a train or a bus…

The family are outraged, of course:
Ms Stubbings' daughter Celia Peachy said of the police: "They didn't do their job.

"If they had, after that first assault, directed her to a refuge, her life would have been saved. We will fight for justice
."
You mean, it was beyond her skills to find a refuge herself if she felt the situation warranted one?

Does she bear no responsibility at all, then?
IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne added: "I am unable to make sense of the ease with which two officers were fobbed off by Marc Chivers.

"They were far too easily persuaded by the account of a man they knew to be a convicted murderer..."
This from a criminal justice system that insists that prison warders refer to their charges with ‘respect’
Her brother Manuel Fernandez said: "Clearly there were a series of events that were ignored.

"Two years to investigate this incident is just woeful for this family.

"Police had countless opportunities to intervene. We are going to pursue justice through a number of means including possibly civil."
Yes, some filthy lucre will make it all better, won’t it?

11 comments:

  1. The serious flaw in a post which echoes Gadget, is mistaking UK police for an organisation which cares a fig for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. dreadful that this poor woman was killed (again hurray for the abolition of the death penalty) but i am also struggling to see what the police did that was so wrong. admittedly the call handler took the wrong address but surely that was likely to be human error? 'directed her to a refuge' how, by force? the policewoman who would not attend on her own (he could have killed her as well) could not have saved her as she was already, sadly, dead. i wonder if some of the anger of the family comes from a feeling of guilt that they did not do more if she was clearly in so much danger. the shouldnt there is only one person responsible for this womans death and he is behind bars (for a bit).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can't really fault plod for this one on the evidence presented here. Yes the WPC could have tried a bit harder to get someone to go with her, but if there is no-one then what could she do? It will be stated policy that she was not allowed to go on her own and if anything had happened she'd have been hung out to dry. The responsibility for this one lies with the family and the legal system, not the force.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Police ... did not have the legal powers to impose the normal restrictions on someone convicted of a murder because it was committed abroad."

    Someone's been reading The Jew Of Malta:

    "Thou hast committed murder, but that was in a foreign country, and besides the wench is dead."

    OK, it was fornication in the original, but there's nothing new under the sun. What happens on tour stays on tour, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And the one thing NO ONE will ask is this: is it really the role of the government to allow 'single mothers' to hook up with violent (but hawt!) headcases without consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @DJ: It isn't the Govt's role to *allow* anything, surely? In certain limited circumstances (and the more limited the better) the Govt may *forbid* certain things. But once you start talking about the Govt *allowing* certain behaviour, you're on the way to a totalitarian state. Next, we will hear of being *allowed* to have so many children, or *allowed* to drive on certain days. Or have I misunderstood you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Surely the German legal system is responsible for letting him out?

    I guess probably because they have same sort of stupidty as here - heads should roll in Germany - not here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think we miss the point on all these types of killing. Its our CJS that is in a mess and no none in it from magistrates, judges, lawyers, cops and sundry are interested in making it better. It's the food trough for them.
    The blame is placed on street-level bureaucrats, if it is allowed to stick at all - usually with the cops.

    Police and the rest of the CJS are hopeless at dealing with intimidation. The question that arises is why they won't admit this and change so they can get it right. Even decent people can do nothing about local bullies, at least legally.

    ReplyDelete
  9. just wondering if the Police Officers who were 'fobbed off' had the power to force an entry and on suspicion of what.
    If they did force an entry, with no obvious powers, the IPCC might have something to say..

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...mistaking UK police for an organisation which cares a fig for the truth."

    If not them, then whom?

    "...but i am also struggling to see what the police did that was so wrong."

    Indeed. It's usually obvious, but not this time.

    "The responsibility for this one lies with the family and the legal system, not the force."

    And yet the legal system gets barely a mention...

    "...there's nothing new under the sun. What happens on tour stays on tour, apparently."

    In a few more decades, the European Arrest Warrant will have thoroughly muddied THOSE waters...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...is it really the role of the government to allow 'single mothers' to hook up with violent (but hawt!) headcases without consequences?"

    Sadly, in our consequence-free society, the answer seems to be 'Yes'...

    "Police and the rest of the CJS are hopeless at dealing with intimidation."

    Which is surprising, because they are pretty good about dishing it out when they want to be!

    "just wondering if the Police Officers who were 'fobbed off' had the power to force an entry and on suspicion of what.

    If they did force an entry, with no obvious powers, the IPCC might have something to say.."


    It wouldn't have made any appreciable difference in this case anyway, as she was already dead...

    ReplyDelete