The first is the family of Jimmy Mubenga, who received this verdict on 17 July 2012, admit complaints of the private security firm G4S's inefficiency and failure to fulfill its state-funded contract to provide security for the Olympics in London, thereby nessecitating increased police statism and martial law from the public sector instead (and proving that neoliberal privatisation resulting in greater cost-effectiveness is a total fallacy). Failure on the security of the corporate and fascistic Olympic games is one thing, but the way the Mubenga was treated by G4S, and his family by the state and so-called justice system should invoke more moral outrage entirely. Those of who have been aware of G4S long before the Olympic security debacle are aware of the sheer cruelty and ethical dilapidation within its history and practices. Such as profiting from the enforcement of apartheid in South Africa, the detention centres and checkpoints of the Israeli government in Palestine, and the general treatment of asylum seekers in detention centres in Britain like animals, with many accounts of torture, assaults, verbal abuse and racism. In Jimmy Mubenga's case, he was restrained by G4S officers when being extradited to Angola. Passengers on the flight could hear his screams and complaints of being in pain and feeling as if endangered when being compressed on the floor by G4S guards. Though his cause of death is precisely unknown, the court somehow conveniently figured that the G4S officers in question had no responsibility in causing Jimmy Mubenga's death through their aggressive and abusive treatment and detainment of him.
On 19 July 2012 police officer Simon Harwood (who has a long history of brutal and aggressive behaviour) was acquitted of the manslaughter of Ian Tomilinson. The specific case in question was that Tomlinson was an innocent bystander during the London G20 protests in 2009, who happened to be in the vicinity of Harwood's happily inflicted truncheon. Following this attack, Ian Tomlinson collapsed and died from a heart attack, as seen in the footage below.
Just as in the case of Jimmy Mubenga, the state high court somehow came to the conclusion that the aggressive behaviour of the police officer in question had absolutely no relation to the medical trauma that Ian Tomlinson died from.
This diametrical confliction with basic rationality is a phenomena of injustice that is not at all in common, in context of no justice for police brutality victims and their families, or otherwise. This basic phenomena being that "independent" legal authorities, on behalf of state, police or corporate powers, will always go to the effort of making the application of accountable justice and transparency as flexible as possible, either through technical loopholes, or sheer lying and intentional failure to apply basic justice to them. They have what we can term a monopoly of truth. Whereby in an Orwellian fashion, they define reality according to their own accounts of reality, self-supplied or supplied from each self-serving authority to each other, which are then used in courts of law which undertake legal proceedings and investigations that are as farcical as any banana republic; which conclude decisions enforcing of all authoritarian power and evasion of responsibility, even when extremely clear evidence affirms the contrary of their constructed narratives, such as the footage of Harwood's baton strike in Tomlinson's case.
One of the most fundamental imperatives of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions was opposition to the brutality of security forces.
None of us should be delusional, and are not deceived, to think that a legal system without justice serving the moral corruption and violent ideologies of socioeconomic powers can be in anyway relied upon to fulfill justice. As in all contexts of power in the modern world, eroded fundamental freedoms can only be re-empowered through our own actions.