It must be right that the police went looking for a young child when alerted by doctors that his life might be in danger. But when they found him, all thinking seems to have stopped.
With Ashya under police guard, did the parents present any sort of flight risk?
It was clear from Hampshire Police’s press conference on Sunday morning that they were still focussed on how right it had been for them to initiate the search for five year-old Ashya King. No thought was going into what needed to happen now that the hunt was over.
Ashya was safe and, if not well, then well fed. That is important, because the imminent threat to his life had supposedly been that the battery in Ashya’s feeding pump was said to be running out. Once that aspect was taken out of the equation, it becomes far from clear that his parents were causing him any harm, wilfully, recklessly or even through ignorance of the consequences of their actions.
Faced with these findings, the obvious question presents itself: was there any basis on which to persevere with the arrest warrant? If that is too difficult to answer without taking some time, what about the question of bail? Why did the police oppose it, meaning that the parents were held on remand? With Ashya under police guard in a hospital, did the parents present any sort of flight risk? And then there is the rest of Ashya’s family: why were they denied access to Ashya from Saturday to Monday?
We are told this morning that the case has been put under “immediate review”. Why has it taken so long?
Sign up for updates by Email, Twitter or RSS Feed.
Related articles on this website
I keep reading expressions of anger that the Metropolitan Police sought a court order under the Official Secrets Act to uncover the Guardian’s source behind the phone hacking story (here, ...Read the complete article
A couple of matters caught my attention this morning, from the world of journalism and coffee shops.
Part 1 ... Friday the fifteenth
The Daily Mail wants us to believe that an ...Read the complete article
The European Court of Human Rights has decided today that police “kettling” of crowds – holding them within a police cordon for hours at a time – does not deprive ...Read the complete article
Lovers of Life on Mars may have thought that DCI Gene Hunt was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday. In fact, it was a real (ex-)cop, former ...Read the complete article
As an accredited mediator, it’s always of interest to me when I come across an example of a dispute which is better resolved through mediation than through litigation. These stories ...Read the complete article
It seems that, when it comes to Brexit, we can’t trust anyone to get their facts right. Not even lawyers. At least, not Lawyers for a People’s Vote (LfaPV).
I don’t ...Read the complete article
Much has been written about the harrowing cross-examination of Milly Dowler’s family during the trial of Levi Bellfield. One of the strangest remarks was written by Peter Lodder QC, Chairman ...Read the complete article
The press are against statutory regulation of their activities. That is the message they have been sending to the Leveson Inquiry. But most people fear that, without a legislative underpinning, ...Read the complete article
Hasty Copper and the Paper with Secrets
Court takes a liberty with our freedom
“I’m Hayman and I’m ’aving hoops”
You better (not) knock, knock, knock on wood
Lawyers for Alternative Facts?
Justice under examination
Leveson could legislate for a non-statutory regulator