Thug cops escape justice again
They should have been put in front of a jury on a manslaughter charge
THE mother of a Queensland teenager run over and killed after police handcuffed him and forced him to lie on a road is disgusted no charges will be laid.
Andrew Bornen, 16, was lying restrained and face down on a busy suburban roadway in the Ipswich suburb of Brassall when he was struck and killed by a car on February 7, 2009. His heart, aorta and pulmonary trunk were ruptured and he died before an ambulance arrived six minutes later.
Officers had forced the Ipswich teen to lie on the road after reports a youth was armed with a machete in the area. However, Mr Bornen was carrying only a baseball bat when confronted by police and an inquest found he had not been acting aggressively.
Mr Bornen's mother, Helen Donaldson, said the Department of Public Prosecutions told her yesterday no charges would be laid over her son's death. She said the news, delivered just before Christmas, had put her "over the cliff".
"I was a bit disgusted," Ms Donaldson said. "I was very upset, very emotional. I'm down anyway, but for them to ring me two days before Christmas, that is what tops the cake."
Ms Donaldson said she took comfort that the inquest had found her son was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and had not deserved such treatment. But she said she doubted police had learnt anything from the tragedy. "I at least thought they should have been charged with something," she said.
Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan, SC, said he had carefully considered evidence that would be admissible in any trial. "There is no suggestion that the police officers were acting unlawfully or not in the execution of their duty in arresting Andrew Bornen, who was intoxicated and armed in public," he said in a statement.
"Given the momentary opportunity the police officers had to assess and act in this situation, the efforts made to alert the driver of the vehicle and the contribution of the driver of the vehicle which ran over and killed Mr Bornen, there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction."
A coroner's inquest found the female driver bore no responsibility for the death.
State Coroner Michael Barnes told the inquest in July he could not accept the evidence of then Senior Constable Anthony Brett and Senior Constable Robert Ward that Bornen, who was drunk, acted aggressively towards them, warranting him being handcuffed on the street.
He said the officers had made a "terrible error of judgment" in leaving the teenager lying there.
SOURCE
3 comments:
Maybe the Mother can now much a civil claim against the queensland police, now that no criminal charges will be pursued.
Mnnnnn officers made a 'terrible error of judgement'----decisions made in the heat of the moment by a working police officer, all handled differently, depending on if a CO is out to "brick" the officer. Mr Leavers, you display different levels of support and different rules for police officers who have all paid union fees. Your support of commissioned officers over and above the non commissioned officer leaves much to be desired, especially considering these are usually front line operational officers who answer the call out to the public. I'll bet the government who ignores the dishonesty and uneven internal investigative procedure, does not realize it is the operational front line cop that you sacrifice due to your conflict of interest.
Interesting to hear Ian Leavers speaking on the news, after policeman Ricardo's charges failed to materialize.
Ian Leavers seems to have no conscience as he appears to understand the "trauma" Ricardo and his family have been experiencing. Yet he failed to even acknowledge or care about the trauma other officers have experienced as they tried in vain to have the truth established. In my son's case, if Ian Leavers had not had a conflict of interest he would have spoken to the police barrister, viewed the brief of evidence, and realized that you had a duty of care to this officer, who was being bricked. This officer should not have been treated this way. "I will always support a working police officer who makes a mistake" you, Leavers, often said in defence of thug cops. But what of an officer who was not guilty of thuggery, one who made the 'wrong call.' This is what I kept saying, over and over, why not my son. Conflict of interest Mr Leavers, isn't it? That's why the police barrister told the targeted officer to change his story, because they will never believe a non commissioned officer over and above a commissioned officer. Was that the supervisor, or the A/C or Inspector all of whom you considered you owed "MORE of a DUTY of CARE towards than the officer who made, not even a mistake, "a wrong call chasing break and enter offenders at 2.30am one rainy night". Fortunately, when you were involved with the prostitute in the police speed van you were given a second chance. You were not dishonestly investigated, to proved you were shooting up with drugs and then distributing them on the way home. You would have experienced exactly the same as our son did. As you stood by and watched him face dishonest, untested undocumented statements. A different police barrister fought to have QCAT refuse all benefit of the doubt and allow no natural justice. Even though BOTH members requested QCAT downgrade the charge to "Contact" which was what it was, the she wolf instantly refused. The experienced retired high court judge, made comment, as he has on several occasions, about the shortfall in the investigative processes of QPS. However, despite this, he still rubber stamped the acting Deputy's decision. I might add that the A/Deputy just so happened to be on his last day before he retired.
When I heard you rabbiting on about Ricardo, his family and their stress, I still say, "what about my son? What about my family?" There have been countless enquiries and reviews into the police internal discipline and investigative process. The police union and QPS just sit on the suggestions, believing it will be forgotten and no change needs to be done. I will not forget. Industrially it is wrong, corrupt. Morally it is disgusting. Ethically, it is hypocritical, when you have an A/C of G20, who has been untruthful in a work cover reply, and showed no duty of care to an employee under her care. An Inspector, (then-who knows what now. Superintendent?) who also plain straight lied to colleagues and work cover, and 2 Investigators who (quoting solicitor-taped) were 'untruthful'. The system is in need of legislative change. In our case the officer resigned from the job and dog he loved rather than accept the punitive transfer, and accept the untruthful investigation. Even tho the A/C responsible for the nepotism and pay back was nudged to retire early, the dishonest officers remain.
Post a Comment