This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/7532641.stm

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Murdered man's family loses case Family loses witness murder case
(30 minutes later)
The family of man who was murdered by a former employee has lost its claim that police failed to protect him. The family of man murdered by a former employee he was due to give evidence against in court has lost its claim that police failed to protect him.
Optician Giles Van Colle was shot in Mill Hill Broadway, north London, in 2000 by Daniel Brougham.Optician Giles Van Colle was shot in Mill Hill Broadway, north London, in 2000 by Daniel Brougham.
A panel of five Law Lords ruled unanimously in favour of Hertfordshire Police in a "human rights" case. Mr Van Colle's family claimed Hertfordshire Police had breached his human rights in failing to protect him.
They also ruled in favour of Sussex Police in a case involving Stephen Smith, who claimed the force failed to protect him from his former partner. However, Law Lords ruled unanimously in favour of the force, and the Sussex force in a similar case.
In March 2006, the High Court found that Hertfordshire Police had violated Articles 2 and 8 of the Human Rights Act in relation to its protection of Mr Van Colle. Last year, three appeal judges rejected a challenge by Hertfordshire Police regarding the conclusions of a High Court judge involving the case.
He had been due to give evidence against Mr Brougham, a former employee who was sacked for stealing from his shop. He ruled that there had been a violation of human rights laws in failing to "discharge the positive obligation of the police" to protect Mr Van Colle's life.
His life would have been protected if he had been placed in a safe house, the court was told.His life would have been protected if he had been placed in a safe house, the court was told.
Police counsel said Brougham's actions could not have been foreseen and did not involve human rights laws. Hammer attack
Mr Van Colle had been due to give evidence against Mr Brougham, a former employee who was sacked for stealing from his shop.
In May this year a court heard that Brougham, a petty criminal, was standing trial for taking items valued at just £500.
This earlier hearing was told it was not a case in which the witness could have been categorised as being in immediate danger of losing his life, and therefore human rights laws were not engaged.
The Sussex case involved Stephen Smith, who claimed the force failed to protect him from his former partner when he was attacked with a hammer.
Law Lords allowed an appeal by Sussex Police against a Court of Appeal finding that the force was negligent in not protecting Mr Smith.
His former partner, Gareth Jeffrey, attacked him with a claw hammer and left him seriously injured. He had repeatedly warned Brighton Police that Jeffrey was threatening to kill him.