i dont agree with your statement these so called friends coerced her to go to the trip and than threatened to kill her how is that misadventure? not to mention the paramedic stating seeing the kids not distressed and not wet so how did they try to rescue shukri? they need to be charged.
Shukri abdi death. June 2019
- Thread starter hannah246
- Start date
-
MD MD - Frank Thomas Christensen, USAF, 20, Missing 8 July 1977- Latest: Quoththeraven
Shukri Abdi: Why lawyers are suing the police for failing to do a full investigation
Lawyers say there are more than 20 inconsistencies in evidence surrounding Shukri Adbi's case
LAWYERS ACTING on behalf of Shukri Abdi are set to pursue an unlawful killing verdict at high court, after an inquest ruled the 12-year-old schoolgirl’s death an accident.
Our community will know that Shukri died on June 2017, after entering the River Irwell in Bury.
She was found with children she did not usually socialise with, after school, though she was known to go directly home.
Lawyers believe they have a chance to get the unlawful killing verdict they want, because the law has changed since the inquest.
Now, inquests no longer need to meet a criminal standard for unlawful killing, but a lower, civil standard.
Put simply, this means that Shukri Abdi’s family lawyers are more confident they can get that verdict they hoped for at the start.
Did Greater Machester Police respect Shukri Abdi’s right to life?
Getting the unlawful killing verdict is important because it strengthens their civil action against Greater Manchester Police (GMP), who they are suing under Section 2 of the Human Rights Act – the right to life.
Lawyers argue that the police force did not investigate the 12-year-old schoolgirl’s death properly back in 2019.
The family believe this is due to institutional racism within the force.
When the force failed to investigate thoroughly, they failed to respect Shukri Abdi’s right to life, lawyers argue.
They say there are more than 20 inconsistencies in evidence surrounding Shukri Adbi’s case.
Family lawyer Attik Maliq says there is no evidence that it was nervous laughter, when children laughed as she was left to drown.
Did Greater Manchester Police conduct a full and thorough investigation?
Similarly, he says there is no evidence that when one of the children said: “Get into the water or I’ll kill you,” they were just using a figure of speech.
Therefore, they claim that Greater Manchester police failed to conduct a full and thorough investigation.
Before 2018, there was no way to hold police accountable for this.
However the case of Black cab rapist John Worboys changed that.
Victims who had reported his crime years prior in 2003 and 2007, sued the police for not investigating properly.
When police failed to properly investigate, the supreme court found they had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Section 3 of the European convention on human rights.
Family lawyer Attiq Malik said: “We stated at the conclusion of the coroners court proceedings, that whilst those proceedings were an end of a chapter in the pursuit of justice for Shukri, it was not the end of the book.
“The inquest unveiled the truth of what happened to Shukri on the day and who failed her, as well as her family.
“Now that the inquiry process is over it is time for the challenge process to begin, to hold those who failed Shukri to account, the first of which being GMP.”
A police force under fire?
Greater Manchester Police Force has been placed under special measures. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) found that about 220 crimes a day went unrecorded in the year up to June 2020.
A Greater Manchester Police (GMP) spokesperson said: “The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) carried out an independent investigation and reviewed GMP’s response following the death of Shurki Abdi.
“The IOPC concluded their investigation and no learning was identified for GMP.
“Following the Inquest, a civil claim has been started and it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.
“Our sincere thoughts remain with Shurki’s loved ones and those affected by her death.”
Shukri Abdi: Why lawyers are suing the police for failing to do a full investigation - Voice Online
Lawyers say there are more than 20 inconsistencies in evidence surrounding Shukri Adbi's case
LAWYERS ACTING on behalf of Shukri Abdi are set to pursue an unlawful killing verdict at high court, after an inquest ruled the 12-year-old schoolgirl’s death an accident.
Our community will know that Shukri died on June 2017, after entering the River Irwell in Bury.
She was found with children she did not usually socialise with, after school, though she was known to go directly home.
Lawyers believe they have a chance to get the unlawful killing verdict they want, because the law has changed since the inquest.
Now, inquests no longer need to meet a criminal standard for unlawful killing, but a lower, civil standard.
Put simply, this means that Shukri Abdi’s family lawyers are more confident they can get that verdict they hoped for at the start.
Did Greater Machester Police respect Shukri Abdi’s right to life?
Getting the unlawful killing verdict is important because it strengthens their civil action against Greater Manchester Police (GMP), who they are suing under Section 2 of the Human Rights Act – the right to life.
Lawyers argue that the police force did not investigate the 12-year-old schoolgirl’s death properly back in 2019.
The family believe this is due to institutional racism within the force.
When the force failed to investigate thoroughly, they failed to respect Shukri Abdi’s right to life, lawyers argue.
They say there are more than 20 inconsistencies in evidence surrounding Shukri Adbi’s case.
Family lawyer Attik Maliq says there is no evidence that it was nervous laughter, when children laughed as she was left to drown.
Did Greater Manchester Police conduct a full and thorough investigation?
Similarly, he says there is no evidence that when one of the children said: “Get into the water or I’ll kill you,” they were just using a figure of speech.
Therefore, they claim that Greater Manchester police failed to conduct a full and thorough investigation.
Before 2018, there was no way to hold police accountable for this.
However the case of Black cab rapist John Worboys changed that.
Victims who had reported his crime years prior in 2003 and 2007, sued the police for not investigating properly.
When police failed to properly investigate, the supreme court found they had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Section 3 of the European convention on human rights.
Family lawyer Attiq Malik said: “We stated at the conclusion of the coroners court proceedings, that whilst those proceedings were an end of a chapter in the pursuit of justice for Shukri, it was not the end of the book.
“The inquest unveiled the truth of what happened to Shukri on the day and who failed her, as well as her family.
“Now that the inquiry process is over it is time for the challenge process to begin, to hold those who failed Shukri to account, the first of which being GMP.”
A police force under fire?
Greater Manchester Police Force has been placed under special measures. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) found that about 220 crimes a day went unrecorded in the year up to June 2020.
A Greater Manchester Police (GMP) spokesperson said: “The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) carried out an independent investigation and reviewed GMP’s response following the death of Shurki Abdi.
“The IOPC concluded their investigation and no learning was identified for GMP.
“Following the Inquest, a civil claim has been started and it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.
“Our sincere thoughts remain with Shurki’s loved ones and those affected by her death.”
Shukri Abdi: Why lawyers are suing the police for failing to do a full investigation - Voice Online
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/shukri-abdi-high-court-dismisses-23862888
Shukri Abdi: High Court dismisses family bid to overturn coroner's verdict over tragic death
A request for a judicial review into a coroner's conclusion that the drowning of a 12-year-old Somali refugee was accidental has been dismissed by a High Court judge. Shukri Abdi, 12, died after getting into difficulties in the river in Bury during a heatwave in June 2019.
Following an inquest held in 2020, Coroner Joanne Kearsley ruled that on the ‘balance of probabilities’ Shukri died as a result of an accidental death. Last month her family went to the High Court in Manchester to challenge her conclusion, claiming it was a 'flawed' verdict.
Now a senior High Court judge has dismissed the application for a judicial review, concluding: "I have been unable to find any arguable ground for judicial review having any realistic prospect of success."
The Abdi family argued the coroner only allowed evidence from the day of the tragedy. They said she ruled out evidence about alleged bullying Shukri had suffered previously by the children who were with her when she went into the water.
At the time of her death Shukri was with four other children, who for legal reasons can only be referred to as Child One, Two, Three and Four. The 2020 inquest heard how Child One encouraged Shukri to go into the water despite knowing she couldn’t swim.
Child One told Shukri she would look after her and would teach her to swim. Coroner Joanne Kearsley ruled that meant Child One had a duty of care to Shukri and breached that duty because she should have been able to foresee the risk of drowning.
But that breach, Ms Kearsley said, wasn’t serious enough to warrant a conclusion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Ms Kearsley said: "Child One was naïve, she was foolish, she thought she could teach Shukri to swim and this ill-considered act went badly wrong. She did not force Shukri into the water, she did not undertake any actions with the explicit intention of causing her harm. She was in unfamiliar water the dangers of which I am satisfied were not fully appreciated. At its highest this was a serious error of judgment. I am sure the ramification of the 27th June 2019 will be felt by many for a long time."
Considering the application for a judicial review, Mr Justice Fordham concluded 'it is not arguable with any realistic prospect of success' that the law and fairness required the coroner to investigate the claims said to have been made by three children concerning alleged 'planning' or 'pushing'.
Shukri's mother had said in a statement for the inquest that: "Shukri was subjected to a daily campaign of bullying by (Child Two) and her friends."
The judge pointed out that Shukri's mother had conceded that she did not know Child One and as far as she was aware there were no issues between Child One and her daughter.
Mr Justice Fordham, in his ruling, said: "I have been unable to find in this case any arguable ground for judicial review having a realistic prospect of success. I have been shown no aspect of the process, reasoning or conclusions which, in my judgment – whether individually or cumulatively with other features of the case – entails any arguable vitiating flaw in public law terms."
He concluded: "Since - for the reasons I have given - I have been unable to find any arguable ground for judicial review having any realistic prospect of success, I refuse the renewed application for permission for judicial review."
At the hearing at the Civil Justice Centre last month, Sophie Cartwright QC, representing Senior North Manchester Coroner Ms Kearsley, said her client had not 'closed her mind' to allegations of bullying. She insisted it was covered in the evidence presented to the inquest of the four children.
And, she said the coroner had investigated suggestions that the incident had been planned. Rejecting a claim that more children should have been called to give evidence, Ms Cartwright said the coroner had invited submissions at the inquest about which witnesses should be called and pointed out Ms Kearsley called more witnesses than were requested by the family.
The QC said her client had not been seeking to limit the scope of the inquest, had been 'keeping an open mind' and 'kept under review' the actions of Child One.
BBM
Another source about the dismissal by the High Court, with more detail about the grounds for appeal brought forward by the family:
High court judge dismisses Shukri Abdi family's judicial review bid
The High Court was told that the case of Mrs Ture, which had been amended during the proceedings, now had three main grounds.
The first was that the coroner had 'acted unreasonably or unfairly in her approach to key aspects regarding the nature and scope of her inquisitorial investigative enquiry'.
Another was that she gave 'legally inadequate reasons' and a third was that she 'arrived at conclusions which were not reasonable or justified on the evidence'.
Her lawyers contended that the alleged errors made should result in the coroner's original conclusion being quashed and a fresh inquest being ordered.
This could then consider alternative findings like 'unlawful killing' or an open or narrative conclusion, the court was told.
Stephen Simblet QC, for the family, argued the coroner was wrong to limit the scope of her inquiries to the day in question and had discounted evidence of previous 'bullying' involving Shukri and at least two of those present when she drowned.
He also told the court that the theme of whether the trip to the river was "planned" and evidence of whether Shukri was "forced" or "pushed" into the water was not sufficiently explored.
Mr Simblet also took issue with the fact that a witness referred to as Child One, who was with Shukri in the water, had not given live evidence, for health reasons.
But Mr Justice Fordham noted that the coroner had identified that, in statement by Mrs Ture, she could not identify any bullying issues between Child One and her daughter. In the same manner, she ruled that the statements of her partner and two child witnesses would not assist the inquiry.
Mr Justice Fordham also said that the family's lawyers, at the inquest, had made no representations to establish why three child witnesses should be called to help clarify the 'planning' or 'pushing' claims they were making.
The high court judge added: " I have been unable to find in this case any arguable ground for judicial review having a realistic prospect of success.
"I have been shown no aspect of the process, reasoning or conclusions which, in my judgment – whether individually or cumulatively with other features of the case – entails any arguable vitiating flaw in public law terms."
BBM
High court judge dismisses Shukri Abdi family's judicial review bid
The High Court was told that the case of Mrs Ture, which had been amended during the proceedings, now had three main grounds.
The first was that the coroner had 'acted unreasonably or unfairly in her approach to key aspects regarding the nature and scope of her inquisitorial investigative enquiry'.
Another was that she gave 'legally inadequate reasons' and a third was that she 'arrived at conclusions which were not reasonable or justified on the evidence'.
Her lawyers contended that the alleged errors made should result in the coroner's original conclusion being quashed and a fresh inquest being ordered.
This could then consider alternative findings like 'unlawful killing' or an open or narrative conclusion, the court was told.
Stephen Simblet QC, for the family, argued the coroner was wrong to limit the scope of her inquiries to the day in question and had discounted evidence of previous 'bullying' involving Shukri and at least two of those present when she drowned.
He also told the court that the theme of whether the trip to the river was "planned" and evidence of whether Shukri was "forced" or "pushed" into the water was not sufficiently explored.
Mr Simblet also took issue with the fact that a witness referred to as Child One, who was with Shukri in the water, had not given live evidence, for health reasons.
But Mr Justice Fordham noted that the coroner had identified that, in statement by Mrs Ture, she could not identify any bullying issues between Child One and her daughter. In the same manner, she ruled that the statements of her partner and two child witnesses would not assist the inquiry.
Mr Justice Fordham also said that the family's lawyers, at the inquest, had made no representations to establish why three child witnesses should be called to help clarify the 'planning' or 'pushing' claims they were making.
The high court judge added: " I have been unable to find in this case any arguable ground for judicial review having a realistic prospect of success.
"I have been shown no aspect of the process, reasoning or conclusions which, in my judgment – whether individually or cumulatively with other features of the case – entails any arguable vitiating flaw in public law terms."
BBM
DrQ
Curiosity Chromosome in DNA
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 379
- Reaction score
- 2,431
IMHO I have commented before about bullies and believe they are a scary species. This is a tragic case and the family continues to be haunted and devastated by the loss of their daughter. Depending on where you live and the codes of law, the role of the coroner can vary. It often appears that the court/judges do not like to over rule an autopsy decision. It is possible that many have gotten away with murder due to autopsy rulings. Unfortunately, the justice system deemed it unnecessary to consider the bulling that their child endured as part of the case. This is a tragedy for the family who live with the questionable death of their child. Even more tragic, is that Child's One through Four are able to live their lives freely ..... regardless of the possibility that they bullied this child or even worse allowed her to drown. In the future, I pity the fool who ever gets in their way.
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 138
- Guests online
- 2,925
- Total visitors
- 3,063