I believe that the late Darrim Daoud lived, and died, the best hero he had it in him to be, a hero of whom his father and mother can justly be proud, whatever belittling the papers might have to say about their fallen son, the few column-inches they had to spare at the time.
Because at least one person has asked me for this facility, I am making the first use of this, my new-today, first-ever “blog”, the provision of this space, specifically for the benefit of anybody who wants to talk intelligently, by adding comments, about the violent death of Darrim Daoud, about two-and-a-half years ago; or to comment upon, or to ask me questions about, my subsequent court action against West Sussex coroner, documented at KILLED.org.uk – a judicial review permission claim brought against the coroner who decided that I wasn’t a “properly interested person” for the purposes of her inquest.
That coroner’s decision still strikes me as wrong-headed. Why? Because the late Mr Daoud had, in his testimony, delivered orally to me and to my partner Amanda, testified of his having been threatened by those he took to be agents of the British public sector intelligence and security industry. He had specifically asked me himself, only a few weeks before he was killed, to take the keenest possible interest at any inquest, in the event that he met an early, violent death, as he appeared terrified he might. I had promised Darrim that I would do exactly this, if the worst came to the worst. Nobody that matters is disputing in court that all of this happened, more-or-less exactly as I have told it here. I therefore still have had a serious problem with the coroner ruling that, nonetheless, my interest in my brave, young comrade’s inquest, and specifically in how he met his death, was (in effect) an improper interest for me to take.
I therefore have a conscience problem about abandoning my legal challenge to this decision, before I have exhausted every possible access to a legal remedy, over that (I still think) flawed decision. But, it is fair to say, I also have a conscience problem about the risk of a costs order against me, and about perhaps upsetting Darrim’s family, especially his grieving parents. I am on the horns of a dilemma, so-to-speak. Hence, I feel, I now need your advice, sympathetic readers.
Despite my promise to the deceased to do what the coroner did not want to let me do, since supported in this ruling by the Administrative Court, I have niggling doubts that I was wise to take my dispute with the coroner as high as I have. (It is presently being looked at by the Court of Appeal, which will soon have to decide whether or not to give me permission to appeal against the Administrative Court’s decision to uphold the coroner’s decision without hearing a substantive application for judicial review.) I would like, please, to hear the views of the public on this.
I would especially like to hear from people who are sympathetic to Darrim’s demonstration against organised stalking and the infliction of electronic harassment by the use of directed energy weapons, my “constituency” so-to-speak, for the past decade or so. Have any of you ever confided in somebody else you thought cared, that you felt your own lives might have been in danger, and had begged them to intervene, if “anything happened to you”, as the euphemism goes, and they promised you that they would so intervene? If so, how would you feel, if they had replied that the legal precedent set by John Allman’s still-struggling court case, about somebody just like you, stood in the way of them keeping their promise to you, making them reluctant to make any such promise?
I would also be very glad indeed to hear the views of the family and friends of Darrim, deeply touched emotionally as they must be, by the tragic loss of their dear loved one.
Over to you. Please all tell me what you think, nicely and sensibly. Does anybody apart from me care enough about what happened to Darrim, to speak out about it in public? If so, now’s your chance.