OOO Et Al V. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police 2011 Essay

OOO Et Al V. Commissioner of metropolitan Police 2011 - Essay ExampleThe verdict was that the officers acting as agents of the defendant, had leave out the aspects of investigating on the issue of contention. The issue of contention involved the claims of human trafficking as well as the duties and the powers of the law of nature. The issue involved the claim that the claimants had been exposed to degrading, uncouth treatment, besides being held under servitude and forced compliance. Following the suit, each of the claimants was awarded a cash retribution of 5,000 as non-pecuniary compensation (Benitez et al. 2010). Discussion The case in head teacher was the first of its kind, to be heard in England and the South Whales, especially due to its scope. The case was headwaying the scope of the duties and obligations of police officers, with regard to investigating reported instances of the violations of bind 3 and 4 of the ECHR. The case involved the ill-use faced by four Nigeria n women, previously trafficked into the U.K, while still below the age of 18 to be used for domestic servitude. The four women had brought a claim against the commissioner of police in charge of the Metropolis, demanding compensation for the failure of clearing out investigations into the intelligence of the cases presented to the police days back, regarding the illegal trafficking and forced servitude at North London. The Metropolitan Police Unit consented of having received the reports of the relegate of the human rights of the four women, as per the provisions of article 3 and 4 of the ECHR. However, the Metropolitan Police disputed the fact that the officers had breached the rights of the claimants, as a result of their failure to investigate the authenticity of the claims of the four women. However, there was no question regarding whether the duty to investigate was demanded under articles 3 and 4 of the ECHR, but, whether the failure to investigate constituted the breach of the duty (Williams & U.N. General Assembly 1981). In deciding the breach to act on the cases of the women, Mr. Williams evaluated in details the evidence provided and the background information offered by the four women and other present witnesses. These witnesses included the police unit, and all the police officers engaged in the reporting of the matter or involved in evaluating the cases of the four women at some point in time. One of the claimants had also challenged the Metropolitan Police Service to offer her retribution damages amounting to ?25,000, to which they consented. The MPS also expressed regret to her, over their failure to offer the basic standards in examining the pot surrounding her plight, which she had reported at the Southgate police station in 2004. Mr. William also considered the conditions surrounding the cases of the three other Nigerian women who were not party to the ?25,000 case claiming that they had undergone akin(predicate) human rights abuse , and had reported the issues to the police. The police had done nothing about their cases (Ovey &White 2006). In the same case, in November 2008 the four claimants had ordered their solicitor to address the MPS, requiring them to carry out criminal investigations into the case, against the people involved in the abuse of the claimants. In December 2008, the MPS consented to the responsibility of undertaking the investigation into the issues surrounding the human rights abuse of the four. According to the case, it was confirmed that