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/england/7532641.stm
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Family loses witness murder case | Family loses witness murder case |
| (20 minutes later) | |
| 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. | 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, 25, was shot in Mill Hill Broadway, north London, in 2000 by Daniel Brougham. | |
| Mr Van Colle's family claimed Hertfordshire Police had breached his human rights in failing to protect him. | Mr Van Colle's family claimed Hertfordshire Police had breached his human rights in failing to protect him. |
| However, Law Lords ruled unanimously in favour of the force, as well as Sussex Police in a similar case. | |
| Last year, three appeal judges rejected a challenge by Hertfordshire Police regarding the conclusions of a High Court judge involving the case. | Last year, three appeal judges rejected a challenge by Hertfordshire Police regarding the conclusions of a High Court judge involving the case. |
| They ruled 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. | They ruled 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. |
| Hammer attack | Hammer attack |
| His life would have been protected if he had been placed in a safe house, the court was told. | |
| Mr Van Colle had been due to give evidence against Mr Brougham, a former employee who was sacked for stealing from his shop. | Mr Van Colle had been due to give evidence against Mr Brougham, a former employee who was sacked for stealing from his shop. |
| Brougham was jailed for life for murder in March 2002 and his appeal was dismissed in May 2003. | |
| In May this year a court heard Brougham, a petty criminal, was standing trial for taking items valued at just £500. | In May this year a court heard 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. | 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. |
| Police forces as well as other public authorities and their insurers can breathe a sigh of relief Lawyer Mark Whittaker | |
| 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. | 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. | 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. | |
| Mr Smith had repeatedly warned Brighton Police that Jeffrey was threatening to kill him. | |
| Mr Van Colle's father Irwin, told the BBC he was, "very, very angry" at the ruling. | |
| He added he was still reading the judgment, but thought the family may take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. | |
| Mark Whittaker, partner at law firm Weightmans who advised the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire said: "Police forces as well as other public authorities and their insurers can breathe a sigh of relief at this judgment. | |
| "If the decision had gone against them it would have had the potential to cost millions of pounds in damages and legal expenses." |