Download Free Report Of The Bloody Sunday Inquiry Hc Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Report Of The Bloody Sunday Inquiry Hc and write the review.

On 29th January 1998 the House of Commons resolved that it was expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely "the events on Sunday, 30 January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day." On 2nd February 1998 the House of Lords also passed this resolution. With the exception of the last 12 words, these terms of reference are virtually identical to those for a previous Inquiry held by Lord Widgery (then the Lord Chief Justice) in 1972. Both inquiries were conducted under the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In his statement to the House of Commons on 29th January 1998 the Prime Minister (The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP) said that the timescale within which Lord Widgery produced his report meant that he was not able to consider all the evidence that might have been available. He added that since that report much new material had come to light about the events of the day. In those circumstances, he announced: "We believe that the weight of material now available is such that the events require re-examination. We believe that the only course that will lead to public confidence in the results of any further investigation is to set up a full-scale judicial inquiry into Bloody Sunday." The Prime Minister made clear that the Inquiry should be allowed the time necessary to cover thoroughly and completely all the evidence now available. The collection, analysis, hearing and consideration of this evidence (which is voluminous) have necessarily required a substantial period of time. The Tribunal originally consisted of The Rt Hon the Lord Saville of Newdigate, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, The Hon William Hoyt OC, formerly the Chief Justice of New Brunswick, Canada, and The Rt Hon Sir Edward Somers, formerly a member of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. Before the Tribunal began hearing oral evidence, Sir Edward Somers retired through ill health. The Hon John Toohey AC, formerly a Justice of the High Court of Australia, took his place. Lord Saville acted throughout as the Chairman of the Inquiry.
This public inquiry report into serious failings in healthcare that took place at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust builds on the first independent report published in February 2010 (ISBN 9780102964394). It further examines the suffering of patients caused by failures by the Trust: there was a failure to listen to its patients and staff or ensure correction of deficiencies. There was also a failure to tackle the insidious negative culture involving poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities. These failures are in part a consequence of allowing a focus on reaching national access targets, achieving financial balance and seeking foundation trust status at the cost of delivering acceptable care standards. Further, the checks and balances that operate within the NHS system should have prevented the serious systemic failure that developed at Mid Staffs. The system failed in its primary duty to protect patients and maintain confidence in the healthcare system. This report identifies numerous warning signs that could and should have alerted the system to problems developing at the Trust. It also sets out 290 recommendations grouped around: (i) putting the patient first; (ii) developing a set of fundamental standards, easily understood and accepted by patients; (iii) providing professionally endorsed and evidence-based means of compliance of standards that are understood and adopted by staff; (iv) ensuring openness, transparency and candour throughout system; (v) policing of these standards by the healthcare regulator; (vi) making all those who provide care for patients , properly accountable; (vii) enhancing recruitment, education, training and support of all key contributors to the provision of healthcare; (viii) developing and sharing ever improving means of measuring and understanding the performance of individual professionals, teams, units and provider organisations for the patients, the public, and other stakeholders.
Scores of talented and dedicated people serve the forensic science community, performing vitally important work. However, they are often constrained by lack of adequate resources, sound policies, and national support. It is clear that change and advancements, both systematic and scientific, are needed in a number of forensic science disciplines to ensure the reliability of work, establish enforceable standards, and promote best practices with consistent application. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward provides a detailed plan for addressing these needs and suggests the creation of a new government entity, the National Institute of Forensic Science, to establish and enforce standards within the forensic science community. The benefits of improving and regulating the forensic science disciplines are clear: assisting law enforcement officials, enhancing homeland security, and reducing the risk of wrongful conviction and exoneration. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States gives a full account of what is needed to advance the forensic science disciplines, including upgrading of systems and organizational structures, better training, widespread adoption of uniform and enforceable best practices, and mandatory certification and accreditation programs. While this book provides an essential call-to-action for congress and policy makers, it also serves as a vital tool for law enforcement agencies, criminal prosecutors and attorneys, and forensic science educators.
This report sets out the findings of the public inquiry into the murder in March 2000 at Feltham Young Offender Institution of Zahid Mubarek, an Asian teenager. Mubarek died after being attacked by another young prisoner, his cellmate Robert Stewart, who had a history of violence and racist behaviour. The report identifies the systemic shortcomings which the attack exposed and makes 88 recommendations to reduce the risk of such an attack in the future. Issues discussed include: the events leading up to the public inquiry, including previous investigations by the Prison Service and the Commission for Racial Equality; the mental health background and custodial history of Stewart; the events on the night of the attack; and the wider ongoing problems at Feltham of staff shortages and low staff morale, lack of resources and overcrowding; poor working practices and evidence of racism by staff and prisoners. Recommendations made include: the elimination of enforced cell-sharing should be a high priority for the Prison Service and it should publish guidelines to assist officers in the allocation of prisoners who have to share a cell, taking into account issues of ethnic and religious background; there should be a general rule that an unconvicted prisoner should not share a cell with a convicted prisoner; full cell searches should be carried out at least once every three months; prisoner councils should be set up as part of violence reduction strategies in prisons; improved diversity training for prison staff; and the need for a national database for security information on prisoners to improve the flow of information between and within establishments to help prisoner risk assessment procedures.
The study edition of book the Los Angeles Times called, "The most extensive review of U.S. intelligence-gathering tactics in generations." This is the complete Executive Summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the CIA's interrogation and detention programs -- a.k.a., The Torture Report. Based on over six million pages of secret CIA documents, the report details a covert program of secret prisons, prisoner deaths, interrogation practices, and cooperation with other foreign and domestic agencies, as well as the CIA's efforts to hide the details of the program from the White House, the Department of Justice, the Congress, and the American people. Over five years in the making, it is presented here exactly as redacted and released by the United States government on December 9, 2014, with an introduction by Daniel J. Jones, who led the Senate investigation. This special edition includes: • Large, easy-to-read format. • Almost 3,000 notes formatted as footnotes, exactly as they appeared in the original report. This allows readers to see obscured or clarifying details as they read the main text. • An introduction by Senate staffer Daniel J. Jones who led the investigation and wrote the report for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a forward by the head of that committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Situating the Past in Derry -- From under the Heel of the Minority: Challenging Protestant Memory and Power in Pre-Border Derry, (1896-1922) -- Against the Wishes of the Inhabitants: Memory as Mooring in "Castaway" Derry, (1922-1945) -- Tickling the Lion's Tale, (1945-1962) -- Sulphur in the Air, (1963-1968) -- Old Derry's Last Stand, (1969).
The main report is available separately (HC 780, ISBN 9780102981063).
UK military personnel as individuals are properly subject to UK and international law wherever they serve and there are processes to ensure scrutiny of their individual behaviour and legal compliance but, in the last ten years, legal judgments in the UK and elsewhere against the MoD have raised a number of legal, ethical and practical questions for the Armed Forces and their conduct of operations. The growing number of such challenges is leading to a feeling of disquiet amongst military personnel and informed commentators about the extent and scale of judicial involvement in military matters.There are two aspects of the use of human rights law in military operations that most concern the Committee: The extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights has allowed claims in the UK courts from foreign nationals. However, the requirement for full and detailed investigations of every death resulting from an armed conflict is putting a significant burden on the MoD and the Armed Forces. Secondly, there has been a failure of the accepted principle of combat immunity, most recently evidenced in the Supreme Court majority judgment in June 2013 allowing families and military personnel to bring negligence cases against the MoD for injury or death. This seems to us to risk the judicialisation of war and to be incompatible with the accepted contract entered into by Service personnel and the nature of soldiering.