Damilola Taylor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Damilola Taylor (December 7, 1989 – November 27, 2000) was a Nigerian schoolboy who died in the UK, resulting in a controversy over whether or not he was the victim of a racially-motivated attack.
Contents |
[edit] Early life
Born in Lagos, Nigeria, he travelled to the United Kingdom in August 2000 with his family to allow his sister to seek treatment for epilepsy. He moved into the North Peckham estate and began to attend the local school.
[edit] Death
On 27 November 2000 Damilola set off from Peckham Library at 17:50, on his way home, captured on CCTV as he walked away. On approaching the North Peckham Estate he was cut in the left thigh. Running to a stairwell, he collapsed and bled to death in the space of about 30 minutes. He was still alive in an ambulance on his way to hospital.
Different forensic scientists have presented different events that could have given Damilola his fatal wounds. The theory accepted by the Metropolitan Police is that Damilola was attacked and stabbed with a broken bottle. The alternative theory is that Damilola fell on broken glass in an accident.
[edit] The First Trial, 2002
In 2002 four youths, including two 16-year-old brothers, went on trial at the Old Bailey for the murder of Damilola.
The trial led to all four suspects being acquitted. Two were acquitted on the direction of the judge after he ruled that the prosecution's key witness, a 12-year-old girl, was unreliable; the jury found the other two not guilty.
As well as questioning the reliability of the girl witness, the defence presented the evidence suggesting that Taylor's wounds were consistent with his falling on a broken bottle and that he had not been the victim of an attack.
[edit] New evidence
Despite the setback, police vowed to keep the investigation open. New DNA techniques led to a re-examination of the evidence obtained at the time of the murder. In 2005, fresh arrests were made. The arrested were Hassan Jihad, 19 and two brothers aged 17 and 16 who could not be named due to their age.
[edit] The Second Trial, 2006
On January 23, 2006 Hassan Jihad (now 20-years-old) and two brothers (aged 17 and 18), not named for legal reasons, appeared at the Old Bailey to face charges of his murder, manslaughter and assault with intent to rob before the start of their imminent trial.
The trial commenced on January 24, 2006. On the March 29 2006, the jury retired to consider its verdict.
The trial ended without any convictions. On April 3 the jury returned a not guilty verdict on Jihad for the charges of murder, manslaughter and assault with intent to rob. And then on April 4, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on the charges of murder and assault with intent to rob against the two brothers. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charges of manslaughter against the two brothers, so they were found not guilty, but with the possibility of a re-trial on those charges. On 6th April the CPS announced that the two would be re-tried.
[edit] The Re-Trial for Manslaughter, 2006
On 9 August 2006 Ricky Preddie and Danny Preddie, after a 33 day re-trial, were convicted of the manslaughter of Damilola Taylor. When the verdict was given, Ricky Preddie was dragged away by prison service officers after swearing at the court and saying "You're all going to pay for this". The Judge, Justice Goldring, said "Take him down". After a brief pause, when shouting could still be heard in court, he added "Take him right down". After allowing time for reports, sentencing will take place on October 9th 2006.
An inquiry will now be set up to examine how so much forensic evidence was missed on the initial trial by the Forensic Science Service. Following the collapse of the first trial the police officer assigned to review the case decided to have the clothing that had been taken from a number of suspects re-examined by an independent company, Forensic Alliance. It was hoped that advances in forensic science might reveal further evidence. Instead, more careful examination of the clothing revealed two crucial small blood stains that had been overlooked. Justice Goldring was also concerned that Danny Preddie was supposed to be on a 24 hour curfew when the crime took place, and also that the police had not followed standard procedures when collecting evidence.
In reaching their verdict the jury of six men and six women rejected defence arguments that the fatal wound was caused by a fall (as claimed by Alastair Wilson, a consultant at The Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel) and that blood stains had been "planted" on the Preddie brothers footware and clothing by police officers.
By the end of this third trial, many worrying aspects of the police investigation had emerged. Whilst the total cost was suggested to have reached £20 million it appeared that there had been some serious lapses in procedure that had hindered the prosecution, combined with shortcomings in the judicial system and misreporting in the press. Media reports highlight the following areas of concern:
1) Before the first trial, Police based most of their case on the witness code named "Bromley", whose evidence eventually proved to lack credibility. Such was their confidence in this witness that most other lines of inquiry were curtailed until after the collapse of the first trial.
2) The arrest of suspects for the second trial and the subsequent collection of evidence did not follow proper procedure. In particular, one arresting officer had previously been tasked with the job of collecting sample clothing and had transported children in his car who were wearing similar clothing. Since he was unable to remember if he had used the same car to transport a suspect to the police station, it was possible that fibre evidence found on the suspect had been acquired from the car.
3) The same officer when questioned in court was able to confirm he had collected a garment so that it could be photographed, but had no further recollection of what he had done with it or where he had taken it.
4) The initial examination of clothing by the forensic science service failed to find blood spots on items worn by two defendants. This evidence was only discovered when a private company, Forensic Alliance, were asked to look again.
5) At the time of the crime, one defendant had been remanded into custody under 24 hour curfew. Sadly, the place he was remanded to allowed him to leave at any time he wanted because staff were not allowed to prevent him absconding over a low wall.
6) During the post mortem of the victim vital evidence emerged that was withheld from the media in order to test the accuracy of stories told by witnesses. The statement of a key witness was subsequently made invalid when evidence was leaked and reported to the media before it could be heard in court. A subsequent police report was unable to reject the possibility that the story was leaked by a member of the police force.
7) Six months before the trial, two of the defendants had appeared at the Old Bailey charged with a serious sexual offence. The judge felt that because of their age and the seriousness of the offence they would not be able to understand their position, and would not have a fair trial. Because he had no powers to refer the case back down to a lower court they were released.
On the 9th of October 2006, an Old Bailey judge sentenced the Preddie brothers to 8 years youth custody for the manslaughter of Damilola Taylor.
Following the scenes of violence that had occurred after the verdict was given, both brothers appeared in the dock handcuffed.
Although it was widely reported in the media that Damilola's parents were unhappy that the sentences had not been longer, the judge, Mr Justice Goldring, went to some lengths to explain the factors he was forced to take into account. These included the age of the offenders at the time (12&13), and the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that there had been a plan to kill Damilola. In addition, the weapon used had not been carried to the scene of the crime, but found lying on the ground.
Both brothers will be eligible for release after serving 4 years. Since one brother has already spent over 500 days in custody, he will be eligible for release in around two and a half years.
Since neither brother has shown any remorse for the crime, it is hard to say when either may actually be released on parole. Should they be released before the end of their sentence, it will be on licence, any breach of which will return them to jail to serve the remainder of their sentence. In the event of it being an act of serious violence, they face the possibility of a very long sentence.
Probation reports on both brothers state "They pose a high risk of harm to others". [1]
