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/london/6586723.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Witness murder police lose appeal Witness murder police lose appeal
(30 minutes later)
A police force has lost an appeal against a ruling that it failed to protect a witness who was murdered days before he was due to give evidence.A police force has lost an appeal against a ruling that it failed to protect a witness who was murdered days before he was due to give evidence.
Last March the High Court awarded the parents of Giles Van Colle £50,000 in damages from Hertfordshire Constabulary for the death of their 25-year-old son.Last March the High Court awarded the parents of Giles Van Colle £50,000 in damages from Hertfordshire Constabulary for the death of their 25-year-old son.
The optician was shot dead in 2000, days before his former employee Daniel Brougham stood trial for theft.The optician was shot dead in 2000, days before his former employee Daniel Brougham stood trial for theft.
Appeal judges rejected the police's appeal but reduced damages to £25,000.Appeal judges rejected the police's appeal but reduced damages to £25,000.
Hertfordshire Constabulary accepted disciplinary tribunal findings that the officer in charge of the case - Det Con David Ridley - had "failed to perform his duties conscientiously and diligently".
The police apologised to the parents but denied the High Court's ruling that Mr Van Colle's human rights had been breached.The police apologised to the parents but denied the High Court's ruling that Mr Van Colle's human rights had been breached.
Brougham was jailed for life for murder in March 2002 and his appeal was dismissed in May 2003. In the landmark ruling in March 2006 the High Court judge found the police had acted unlawfully, in violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the Human Rights Act.
Brougham was convicted of murder in 2002Brougham was convicted of murder in 2002
He had been employed by Mr Van Colle - who was shot three times at close range - as a laboratory technician at his shop in Mill Hill, north London. Brougham was dismissed after equipment was stolen. The judge said that if Mr Van Colle had been placed in safe accommodation pending the trial it was "very unlikely" that the murder would have taken place.
Hertfordshire Constabulary accepted disciplinary tribunal findings that the officer in charge of the case - Det Con David Ridley - had "failed to perform his duties conscientiously and diligently". Brougham was jailed for life for murder in March 2002 and his appeal was dismissed in May 2003.
But the force denied liability and refused to accept there had been a breach of the human rights of Mr Van Colle or his family. He had been employed by Mr Van Colle - who was shot three times at close range - at his shop in Mill Hill, north London. Brougham was dismissed after equipment was stolen.
In the landmark ruling in March 2006 the judge found the police had acted unlawfully, in violation of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, by failing to discharge their positive obligation to protect Mr Van Colle's life. After Tuesday's verdict, Mr Van Colle's parents, Irwin and Corinne, of Wembley, north London, said: "Whilst we are disappointed the damages have been reduced, we are delighted that the legal precedent has been strengthened by this second favourable judgment.
The judge said that if Mr Van Colle had been placed in temporary safe accommodation pending the trial it was "very unlikely" that the murder would have taken place. "Our case was never for profit, but for principle."
Edward Faulks QC counsel for the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police, said in court: "Threats to witnesses and others - in particular partners or neighbours - are sadly commonplace. They should, of course, be treated seriously."
But he argued the question for the court was whether a "failure or an arguable failure" to protect a witness gave rise to a Human Rights Act claim under Articles 2 or 8.