Manchester police officers to be named in Taser death inquest
|
Version 0 of 1. Media outlets have won the right to name five police officers who wanted to remain anonymous at the inquest into a man shot with a Taser. Factory worker Jordan Lee Begley, 23, died two hours after being hit with the electric stun gun by an officer from Greater Manchester police (GMP) at his home in Gorton, Manchester, on 10 July last year. The officers are currently identified only as D14, J1, H4, H1 – who were all involved in restraining Begley – and E21, who pulled the trigger on the Taser. Nigel Meadows, coroner for Manchester, had made an interim anonymity order banning the press from naming the officers, who all serve with GMP. The officers’ lawyers last week made an application to make the anonymity order permanent so they would not be identified at the forthcoming inquest into Begley’s death. Lawyers from the Press Association, the Guardian, Associated Newspapers and ITV argued at the hearing last Monday that the officers should be named. Meadows’ written ruling, issued on Monday, said the officers should give evidence in an open court and be named – but not yet. The interim anonymity order will remain in place until either the officers indicate they will not challenge his decision or until noon on 2 February. The deadline gives the officers’ lawyers time to launch an appeal to the high court, in which case the coroner’s new ruling will be in abeyance until the outcome of the appeal. At last week’s hearing, Meadows heard claims that a £50,000 bounty from crime gangs was the prize for shooting dead an armed police officer. The claim was made by Supt Leor Giladi from GMP in support of the five officers, who say they fear retribution from organised crime groups if they are named at the inquest. But Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing the media with Mike Dodd, legal editor of the Press Association, said not knowing the names would be “a major derogation from the open justice principle” – and that the public had a right to know who, and what, was going on in public courts. Such claims made by police about “villains gunning for cops” were “assertions”, she said. Meadows said he found some of the emotive and strong language used by police as not supported by the evidence while other elements were weak and unpersuasive. He added: “By no stretch of the imagination can the evidence relied upon in support of the applications be described as corroborated, contemporaneous, persuasive, compelling or cogent.” It is not yet known if the officers will appeal against Meadows’s decision. The inquest is expected to take place next year. |