Uk Deportation: Three G4S security guards will not face prosecution over death of Angolan deportee

Claims:

• Jimmy Mubenga died after suffering heart attack in Heathrow in 2010
• He had a heart attack after guards restrained him while putting him on a plane at the airport
• CPS says there is not enough to evidence to prove G4S guards used illegal or deadly force 

 
Photo Top right- Late Jimmy Mubenga

Three security guards working for G4S were yesterday spared the threat of prosecution over the death of Angolan deportee Jimmy Mubenga.
Lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service said there was no evidence that could prove to a jury that the guards used
illegal or deadly force.
Mr Mubenga, who was being deported after serving a jail sentence for causing actual bodily harm, died of a cardiac arrest after the guards restrained him while putting him aboard an aircraft at Heathrow.
The death of the father of five in October 2010 provoked a wave of protest and G4S was stripped of the Home Office contract to supervise removals of deportees shortly afterwards.
Yesterday his widow Adrienne Makenda Kambana said the three guards had escaped the law.
‘We are distraught my husband has been taken away from me and my children have lost their father,’ she said.

‘He was crying for help before he was killed. We can’t understand why the officers and G4S are not answerable to the law and we or any other member of the public would be.’
The Crown Prosecution Service considered four possible charges that could have been brought against the three guards over 46-year-old Mr Mubenga’s cardiorespiratory collapse. In all cases lawyers considered there was not enough evidence to prove their guilt to a jury.

Senior Crown Advocate Gaon Hart said that in order to secure a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter a prosecution would have to prove that the victim was held bent over with his head either on or below his knees for enough time to show it was the actions of the security guards alone that had caused the death.
Mr Hart said that there were ‘conflicting witness accounts of the manner in which Mr Mubenga was restrained.
‘No witness had an unrestricted or uninterrupted view of what happened, and there is no clear picture of what happened in that key window of time to be able to convince a court that Mr Mubenga was held in the “severely splinted” position for a sufficient period of time.’ 

He said there had been a breach of duty by the guards, but the way Mr Mubenga was held was not severe enough for a prosecution.

Culled- dailymail

Share your thoughts...thanks!