Lays out statutory parameters of Inquest. "An Inquest is a limited fact finding inquiry."
She has accepted evidence from Shukri's family, Children 1 - 4, GMP, Fire Service and others. The court has reviewed footage, CCTV, and videos from the phone of one of the children
She acknowledges Zamzam Ture was not provided with a satisfactory translator in the first instance.
She outlines Shukri's birth at a refugee camp in Kenya. She moved to the UK completing 5 months in primary school before moving into secondary school.
Shukri was a "joy to have in class". Shukri was remembered a smiley happy girl by her peers.
Zamzam, Shukri's Mum said prior to June 2019, Shukri has never been to a river. She could not swim.
On the 27th June, Shukri had been in school all day. Coroner states there is a discrepency between accounts of who invited Shukri.
Leaving school at 3:20pm, Shukri was preparing to join an Athletic after school club. Child 1 & 2 came into the changing rooms & raised their voices. They had said they were pissed off angry that she did not come to the school gate to go swimming. "That bitch, she went athletics"
They watched over her as she packed her bags and left with them. Coroner says she believes if Child 1 and 2 had not gone to find Shukri, she would not have left with them.
Whilst in Primark, Child 2 says Shukri said she did not want to go to the waterpark. CCTV Footage at the bus station shows Shukri walking away from Child 1 and 2, Child 2 says she was helping Shukri come up with an excuse, she says she can't recall her words
They left Child 1's house, snapchat footage shows the children had changed clothes. Child 3 & 4 had been to the cinema, they bumped into Child 1, 2 & Shukri unplanned and joined them.
They them followed Child 4 down to the River Irwell
Child 1 had said "I'm going to kill you" when Shukri was reluctant to get into the water. Child 1 says this was said in a joking way.
Judge says teachers provided previous examples of Child 1 using the phrase which demonstrated poor social language comprehension
Child 1 said when she was in the water with Shukri, she realised it was deeper than expected. Coroner says none of the children would have understood all the dangers attached to swimming in this locations.
Child 1 was the only other child in the water when Shukri got into difficulties.
In relation to the sequence of events, Child 1 was the first to enter the water. After Child 1, Shukri entered the water upto her legs. Child 2 entered the water briefly and left to change
Child 1, Child 3 and Shukri had the following convo [paraphrased as live]
Child 1 [Come on, I'll help you swim]
Shukri [I can't swim]
Child 1 [No you have to get in]
Child 3 [Go on she's your friend]
When asked what Shukri had said for Child 1 to say "I'll look after you", Child 1 says she thinks Shukri says she couldn't swim.
Coroner says there has been speculation Shukri was pushed into the river, she says she cannot find any evidence to support this.
Child 1 encouraged Shukri to come into deeper water. They did so holding hands initially, accounts from the children say Shukri was holding Child 1 but seemed fine.
Child 2, 3 & 4 told the court where they believe Child 1 and Shukri went to using aerial footage.
Child 4 described that Shukri had her arm around Child 1 in deeper water. Shukri appeared to be relying on Child 1 to swim.
After 5 mins, Child 1 returned to the rocks. Shukri did not.
Coroner says Child 1 had given differing accounts of the events. Judge is reading transcript of Child 1's accounts of the event.
There was evidence from others that Child 1 had given differing accounts to.
Coroner is now reading out the differing accounts given by Child 1 to different people. Coroner says there must be care when taking accounts of children, including their age and comprehension.
Coroner finding
- Child 1 guided Shukri into deeper water
- Shukri was reliable on Child 1 to float
- That there was a crisis point wherein Shukri panicked and grabbed onto Child 1 pulling her leading to Child 1 panicking & most likely pushed Shukri away
Child 1 and 2 laugh at this stage. Coroner says she does not believe it was malicious, rather an inappropriate childish reaction.
Says Child 4 went into the water to try and find Shukri. Child 1 and 2 make the emergency call.
After looking at legal submissions and statues, Coroner says Shukri's family have submitted for a ruling of unlawful killing, murder, gross negligence or manslaughter. Coroner says there is no evidence that there was an intention to kill.
Coroner says gross negligence and manslaughter cases with children are rare. In the criminal court, majority of cases are adults. Mentioned cases and details of previous cases
Coroner takes on the duty of care argument. Says she has to apply the 3 stage negligence test.
Proximity - says this is satisfied
Forseeability of harm - the test that has to be applied is whether a 13yo schoolchild could have foreseen harm and is below the standard of what can be expected of a child at that age.
Coroner says Shukri entered the water not only because Child 1 encouraged her but said she would help her. The court has to decide whether this behaviour meets the test.
She says the location and environment play a big part in this
She says she is satisfied that there was a foreseeability of harm as Shukri was holding her arm.
Coroner says she is satisfied Child 1 had a duty of care to Shukri.
Now onto whether it was breached
Coroner says Child 1 breached her duty of care towards Shukri.
She is now considering whether the breach is so gross, it is considered criminal. Outlining previous cases and precedents
Coroner says the breach of this duty does not meet the neccesary level to be considered criminal. Says this was a serious error of judgement.
The Coroner has return a verdict of accidental death.
Final words are for Shukri's family. Her mother left the courtroom over a hour ago
Today, and everyday. The family and campaign are releasing a statement shortly #JusticeForShukriAbdi
