Posted on 04/06/2006 1:24:56 PM PDT by Alouette
Coroner's jury decides James Miller, who was fatally shot by IDF soldier in Gaza-Egypt border area while filming documentary, was murdered
A British filmmaker fatally shot in Gaza by an IDF soldier was murdered, a coroner's jury decided Thursday.
James Miller, 34, was shot in the neck by an IDF soldier in the Gaza-Egypt border area of Rafah in May 2003 while filming a documentary about the impact of violence on children in the region.
The coroner, Andrew Reid, told the 10-member inquest jury at King's Cross Coroner's Court that an unlawful killing verdict was the only one they could reach.
"Based on the evidence laid before us, we the jury unanimously agree it was unlawful shooting, with the intention to kill Mr. James Miller. We can come to no other conclusion than that Mr. Miller was indeed murdered," the jury concluded.
"It's a fact that from day one to this inquest the Israeli authorities have not been forthcoming in the investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Miller's death."
Miller's widow, Sophy, wept as the verdict was read.
Reid had told the jury that Miller had either been murdered or was the victim of manslaughter, but that the law drew no distinction.
"The evidence is that there was only intentional firing in this matter but ... it is a matter for you that although the firing was intentional, it might have had an unintended consequence in killing Mr. Miller," Reid said. "But in law that still amounts to unlawful killing."
The British foreign office minister reacted to the verdict, saying: "The verdict of unlawful killing does not come as a surprise to me. The British Government has consistently pressed the Israelis at all levels to carry out a thorough and transparent investigation into James' killing. We are disappointed that the Military Police investigation did not recommend an indictment and that no-one has been held to account for James' death. We continue to support the family’s request for compensation."
The hearing had lasted three days and heard testimony from Miller's widow, members of the film crew that were with him in Gaza and British police who investigated his death.
“Israel has been uncooperative with the Metropolitan Police in that they haven't allowed us access to interview soldiers and witnesses," Detective Inspector Robert Anderson testified Thursday.
Instead, Metropolitan Police had to rely on evidence from previous IDF interviews, and reports from the pathologist and ballistic experts, Anderson said.
Anderson said there was no evidence Miller, a father of two, posed a threat to the Israeli army at the time of the shooting, or that there had been any Palestinian fire directed at the soldiers' position.
He said there was no rational explanation that could prevent a conclusion being drawn that the fatal shot came anywhere other than from the IDF position.
An IDF officer who was commanding the unit at the time of the incident was cleared by a court martial last year of charges of illegally using his weapon.
Miller's father: Verdict an epic milestone
While military prosecutors could not prove that the officer killed Miller, they said he fired in contravention of standing rules of engagement.
Miller's widow and the British government have protested the acquittal.
"James was shot by someone who was deliberately murdering him, not by someone of a national army which was upholding the law of a national state," Sophy Miller said outside the court.
"If there is no punishment, it fosters a climate of impunity and more people are killed."
The dead man's father, Colonel Geoffrey Miller, said the verdict was "an epic milestone, but it doesn't bring closure."
"We still want to see justice and the Israelis must be held to account," he said.
Another one: Do not approach an armed military vehicle at night (or anytime) from an enemy camp with something on your shoulder that could be perceived as a rocket launcher, especially after a rocket was just fired from your position...
Good one, that.
While it is clear he was shot, what is not clear is what direction the bullet came from. I have no doubt that a killing took place, but if a police man, who is under fire fires back and kills an innocent bystander the verdict is clearly manslaugher, not murder.
Unless of course he is a Jew.
"I have no doubt that a killing took place, but if a police man, who is under fire fires back and kills an innocent bystander the verdict is clearly manslaugher, not murder.
Unless of course he is a Jew."
There has been no verdict on guilt in this case as there has been no trial. There has been an inquest into the death which returned a finding of 'unlawful killing'. It is not within the remit of a Coroner's Court to decide on the guilt of an indivdual with regard to that killing or to distinguish whether the killing was murder or manslaughter. Both of those are reserved for an actual trial court.
There is such a distintion - a very clear one - in the criminal law. This, however, was not a criminal trial: it was a coroner's inquest, where the verdict of 'unlawful killing' aplies to both. It's then up to the criminal courts, if a trial is ever brought, to determine the degree of criminality, if any.
I take it you imply that therefore an inquest should not have been held. In fact there was no choice but to hold an inquest. English common law since the Middle Ages has required that when a body is produced which has suffered a sudden death, a coroner's inquest should be held on the cause of that death. The place where the death took place, English soil or not, is irrelevant. We can legitimately criticise the verdict as much as we please, but I don't think there can be any legitimate complaint about the fact of the inquest.
An inquest must be held, and that is not the same as a trial. However, it appears that the media has difficulty keeping the two apart (not only the present article).
However, to my uneducated mind it seems strange that the coroner could direct the jury this way:
"The coroner, Andrew Reid, told the 10-member inquest jury at King's Cross Coroner's Court that an unlawful killing verdict was the only one they could reach".
Why would you need a jury if there is only one verdict (sorry: finding) possible?
Again, I find analogy to the Clegg case compelling.
As Lady Bracknell would say: Once could be seen as an accident, but twice looks like carelessness.
Either you have a situation where British courts are heavily influenced by the politics of the day (eg: the Irish peace process, the anti-Israel agenda), or it is a case of no longer understanding what a war zone really means. (Maybe it is not either or but both and?) A sad state of affairs in either case.
As tragic as the death of Mr Miller is, he would have been wise to consider this saying before starting to run around with a camera on his shoulder during night time in Gaza:
"One may evade reality, but one cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"
What you've touched on here is the extraordinary power of a coroner in the English system. In some ways he has more discretion in the way he directs his jury than does a judge in a criminal or civil court: and it's not at all unusual for a Coroner to direct his jury to bring in a particular verdict. These powers are very ancient, and successive changes and modernisations in other parts of the legal system have usually passed by the office of Coroner. However, a thorough review of the Coroner's Court system was, I believe, commissioned a year or so ago. I've not heard anything about the outcome - either it's been quietly buried or the review is still in progress. Doubtless a Freeper expert in this area will enlighten us.
LOL these sorts of threads tend to denigrate into a Brits Bashing exercise followed by anti Brit Freepers and Brit freepers such as myself and others engaging in a flame war in which we Brits always win, because the other side after mouthing a few rote learned comments run off defeated by pure facts.
Criticizing the left in Britain shouldn't be construed as "Brit Bashing" unless you think the left represents all of Britain. We likewise criticize the actions of the left in America and no one here generally construes that as "anti-American." The converse is usually true.
I hope Europe dies already.
Exactly. A trial involves the right of the accused to mount a defense. I tend to agree with others' assessment that this is an internal political maneuver to open the door for a lawsuit.
What kind of dumbass commander would send a bulldozer out on a job like this at night?
"I tend to agree with others' assessment that this is an internal political maneuver to open the door for a lawsuit."
And you disagree that an inquest is a legal requirement under British law?
LOL I am talking about a certain few freepers who froth at the mouth when ever my country is mention.
LOL Comments such as a load of buck tooth limeys.
Next time a flame war starts I will invite you to have a look.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.