Morning:
13°c
Menezes verdict: jury blames police
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent12.12.08
A CATALOGUE of police errors was today condemned at the inquest into the shooting of John Charles de Menezes.
Banned from considering an unlawful killing verdict, jurors returned an open verdict by an eight to two majority on the death of the innocent Brazilian electrician. The panel made clear it did not believe some of the evidence from the police marksmen.
The officers had claimed that Mr de Menezes moved towards them in a menacing fashion before they opened fire.
Officer C12 - the first to shoot - even claimed he shouted "armed police". But the jury decided unanimously there was no warning and that Mr de Menezes, 27, did not move before he was grabbed in a bear hug by surveillance officer, Ivor, and was shot at point-blank range.
But the jury did agree unanimously that Mr de Menezes rose from his seat as the armed police raced into the Tube carriage. Jurors deliberated for seven days before returning their verdict today on the shooting at Stockwell station the day after the 21/7 attempted suicide bombings in 2005.
Acting Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said after the verdict: "We made a terrible mistake - I am sorry." Extending his condolences to Mr de Menezes' family he added that the Met "must and do accept full responsibility". In response to a detailed questionnaire from coroner Sir Michael Wright, the jury decided unanimously that several factors had caused or contributed to the mistaken shooting of the man police believed to be terrorist Hussain Osman:
● The failure to obtain a good photograph of Osman to identify the suspect.
● The failure by the police to stop Mr de Menezes before he reached public transport.
● The doubts of some officers about the correct identification of the suspect which were not relayed to the firearms team.
● The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team running the operation.
● The shortcomings of the radio system linking the officers.
●The failure to conclude that the surveillance officers should still have stopped Mr de Menezes, even when the firearms officers were reported to be ready to make the stop.
But the jury decided by a majority that the innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes as he made his way to work, which police said had raised their suspicions that he might be the suspected terrorist, could not be considered to have contributed to his death.
Finally, the jury was unable to agree whether the suicide attacks which had taken place on 7 July 2005 and the pressure they created on the Met to deal with a threat was an additional factor or not.
The family of Mr de Menezes immediately denounced the inquest - estimated to have cost a minimum of £6 million - as a "complete whitewash".
Last week, they staged a walkout in protest at the coroner's decision to refuse to allow the jury to return a verdict of unlawful killing.
Their lawyers have announced they intend to challenge the ruling in the High Court and the coroner's refusal to allow the jury to find that the Met's command team on the day were guilty of gross negligence.
That would have amounted to an allegation of manslaughter against Commander John McDowell, the gold commander on the day of the shooting, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, the senior designated officer, and the senior tactical adviser, Chief Inspector Vince Esposito.
The family of Mr de Menezes also made three further demands that:
● The Metropolitan Police Authority must act to ensure individual officers are held to account.
● The Independent Police Complaints Commission review its decision not to recommend disciplinary action.
● The House of Commons home affairs select committee carry out an inquiry into the shooting and its aftermath.
More than 100 witnesses gave evidence over seven weeks at the Oval cricket ground hearing in Kennington.
Mr de Menezes was shot seven times through the neck and head with hollowed bullets for maximum devastation.
A total of 44 police officers were granted anonymity for the proceedings, which the de Menezes family alleged was a "desperate attempt to evade culpability".
The hearing heard for the first time the personal accounts of the two officers who shot Mr de Menezes - known as C12 and C2.
They told of the threat they faced in dealing with a suicide bomber, their duty to protect Londoners from another terrorist bombing and their shock at finding out - days later - that they had killed an innocent man.
Civilian witnesses in the Northern line carriage also spoke in public for the first time and were unanimous that no warning had been shouted before the officers opened fire.
The coroner told the jury they would have to decide whether differences in police officers' accounts were caused by "failure of recollection" or by "misunderstandings and failures of communication" at the time. Last year, the Met was fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 costs after being convicted at the Old Bailey of endangering the public. The jury added to their verdict by stating that they believed Ms Dick had "borne no personal culpability".
Acting Commissioner Sir Paul said today: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is something the Met Police Service deeply regrets."
He stressed the pressure and the unique challenges facing the police and Londoners on the day of the shooting, only 24 hours after four terrorists had tried to blow up the capital's transport system with suicide bombs.
The priority of every police officer on duty that day was to protect Londoners: "Nobody set out that day to kill an innocent man".
Click on image to enlarge
Reader views (50)
"The sad fact is, (and this does not diminish the horror of the shooting) if he had left this country when his visa or whatever had expired, the shooting would not have occurred, well, of him anyway!"
Geronimo, LONDON MIDDLESEX
Can we nail this myth once and for all. Some of you may take comfort in the fact that had Jean Charles de Menezes not been in the country illegally he would not have been shot in the head several times.
He was in the country LEGALLY. If you would care to take a look at any of the evidence presented in the IPCC investigations, this one fact was put to bed some time ago.
He did not have a UK visa at the time of his death, that is true. But he did have an Irish visa which gave him leave to remain in the UK for a time, during which he was killed.
You may, however, continue to prefer to believe the misinformation put out by the Met and the press if you cannot use your prejudices to come up with some other explanation that continues to exhonerate the police.
- Md, London, UK
The sad fact is that this type of incident will happen again!
Not because our police are "Trigger Happy", but because the nature of the persons whom carry out these attacks!
The attackers have all the advantages of having no moral ideals, no regard for the value of human life, (as has recently been demonstrated in Mumbai).
If, in the case of Menezes, he had been a suicide bomber, and had been told to stop, it's almost a certainty he would have detonated the device and possibly killed many!
If the above scenario had occurred, the Press/Media would have erupted in a furore, blaming the armed police for not shooting him!
The sad fact is, (and this does not diminish the horror of the shooting) if he had left this country when his visa or whatever had expired, the shooting would not have occurred, well, of him anyway!
The advantage is always with the attacker, we try to neutralise them by some sort of "Rules of Engagement", unfortunately, these attackers do not have any rules, other than to cause maximum destruction and loss of life!
So, sad as it was to see the above horrible events unfold, the words of the fictional Character "Spok" in the series "Star Trek" spring to mind, and I quote. "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"!
GERONIMO
- Geronimo, LONDON MIDDLESEX
The sad fact is that this type of incident will happen again!
Not because our police are "Trigger Happy", but because the nature of the persons whom carry out these attacks!
The attackers have all the advantages of having no moral ideals, no regard for the value of human life, (as has recently been demonstrated in Mumbai).
If, in the case of Menezes, he had been a suicide bomber, and had been told to stop, it's almost a certainty he would have detonated the device and possibly killed many!
If the above scenario had occurred, the Press/Media would have erupted in a furore, blaming the armed police for not shooting him!
The sad fact is, (and this does not diminish the horror of the shooting) if he had left this country when his visa or whatever had expired, the shooting would not have occurred, well, of him anyway!
The advantage is always with the attacker, we try to neutralise them by some sort of "Rules of Engagement", unfortunately, these attackers do not have any rules, other than to cause maximum destruction and loss of life!
So, sad as it was to see the above horrible events unfold, the words of the fictional Character "Spock" in the series "Star Trek" spring to mind, and I quote. "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"!
- Geronimo, LONDON MIDDLESEX
I am glad to see most respondents are aware of the issues here. A few, are not, and would prefer to be in a Stasi state Unfortunately we are rapidly heading that way, if the issues in this case are not fully and completely aired.
I live by a simple mantra: someone is always accountable. Our UK plc policy is: no-one should be accountable. So, we come to all the problems we have in everything from finance, banks, credit crunch, security, policing, social services..... You name it, we got it.
This is just another example of how our society has degenerated to the point where too many are apologists for state excesses and incompetence. And please, don't someone say, "well you do better". We vote these people in and pay them obscene salaries to do right by, to protect and promote the public, but they seem to be unable to do right by us, or by innocent visitors to our country. Someone is accountable, and needs to answer for it publicly and with penalties. How else do we move forward?
- King Lud, London
There should be no further action. If this man HAD been a terrorist and had exploded a bomb the police would have been wrong for not doing anything. Damned if they do and Damned if they do!
- Vince London, West London
Police are there to protect the people.. mistakes happens police acknowledges its mistakes., now just pay the menezes compensation and be happy..
And all this happens because of Terrorist they should be blamed for the whole mess and wasting tax payers again
- Paul, Manchester
A reality check for some of the professional talking heads: de Menezes had overstayed his visa, which was illegal; he was working here, which was illegal; he had a forged Home Office stamp in his passport, which was illegal (I wonder why is it these facts never seem to be mentioned.); if he had left this country when he was supposed to, he’d still be alive, wouldn’t he?
Are our police cack-handed when it comes to firearms? Most certainly! They've been shooting innocent/unarmed people ever since the Stephen Waldorf case back in 1983 - but that's another matter.
- Croyboy, Croydon
All the people who are attacking those who are attacking the Police conduct - I don't think anyone on here has said the Police that carried out the execution were in the wrong at the time. They lied afterwards which was their mistake.
However, the series of mistakes leading up to this were a disgrace and entirely avoidable. No-one has accepted responsibility and quit over this. Those who precided over the fiasco at the time should have quit. Not to do so shames London.
And Pat from Essex - I am sure you are right, none of those criticising the Police were on the tubes and buses that blew up. I suspect the same can be said for those defending the Police. Criticising the incompetent execution of an innocent man is not unpatriotic, in fact it is positively patriotic to uphold our freedoms. You should have a word with yourself.
- Saunaing Tic Gill, London
We all make mistake but we all have to pay for them and that means the officers in charge must be made to pay
For there terrible error.
At no time ever has a police officer been bought to to justice for all there mistake that have lead to an innocent life been taken.
Mistake/Accident/Error call it what you will.
Why should they not be made to pay.
I do and any other member of the public would have to.
This only goes to prove that there is a law for us and them. IE police officers.
OK as long it not your son.
- Tyler.T, EAST SUSSEX
I hope all of the Police now decide not to volunteer to carry firearms, they should step back from all armed situations and let the armchair critics deal,
There are so many it will be dealt with in seconds ..and in fact all crime will go because the armchair critics will be there to save us,
- Andy, surrey
He should not have been here in the first place his visa had run out some time ago ,had he have gone to Brazil when he should he would still be alive.
- Edward, medway
Well,yet again the police may have said that it was a mistake and apologised.....but they STILL did not admit that they were WRONG.
So,the next time I run someone over in my car, my defence will be "it was a mistake, I'm sorry but can I go now because I don't think I was wrong!"
As regards the question of whether they gave any warning,it seems to me that their policy is one of make sure they are dead, that way they cannot take us to court. Even so if the jury is only allowed the verdict that the state wants there is no point is there??
- Scott Peters, romford
Well if he had been the right man the police would be seen as hero's, thats life,mistakes happen and everyone pays for them.
- Linda, italy
It is truly amazing (but not surprising) to read the left wing anti police brigade spout their twisted views on the wonderful, admirable and much envied British police force. Some of the disgraceful anarchic comments would have us believe that the police deliberately targeted and murdered an innocent man for no reason.
Whilst I do not for a second defend the extraordinarily 'tragic' outcome, you need to place yourselves in the unimaginable position the police found themselves in on that fateful day. The country was under attack and a potential mass murdererer was at large. I strongly suspect you are the very same people who would call the police incompetent if another terrorist attack had been successful. There is no such thing as a perfect police force. They are human and they make many mistakes as we all do. The police have admitted responsibility for this tragedy.
Let me remind everyone the definition of unlawful killing: a death caused by another person, without lawful excuse and in breach of the criminal law in other words homicide.
The police in this situation 'accidentally' killed this innocent man while in their duty of protecting the public. The police officers who carried out the shooting showed bravery beyond the capability of most men. Those officers followed a person they believed could be in the possession of a suicide bomb. They approached him while risking their own lives. They displayed super hero like behaviour regardless of the end result.
- C. Crane, UK
Thats right, the CO19 officers go out onto the streets looking to shoot people ALL the time!
I was VERY heavily involved in the 7/7 bombs, and was put on alert on a number of days after.
I was scared but i did my job.
These officers, would have been scared but did their job's. The intelligence was wrong, an innocent man got shot. Which NO ONE is happy about, and that includes the officers.
NO amount of training will prepare you for this type of incident.
It always makes me laugh that people in these types of jobs are NEVER allowed to make mistakes.
I'll ask you these question's;
Have you NEVER made a mistake at work?
If the officers that pulled the trigger did get prosecuted, who will protect YOU next time?
- Lee, LOndon
Were any of the armchair critics of the police in London when the bus and tube trains were blown up? Were they in the bus or trains that were blown up? More likely, they are sympathisers of the bomber
- Pat, Essex
What a shame, the verdict hasn't been made yet due to incompetent authority of Judiciary who are influenced by politician. Let me tell you frankly, if there is democracy in England this case would be solved in favour of shot dead man's family.Because nothing can justify the killing of innocent and poor man.We have been decieved by the authority since 2005 that there are many aspects of this case. Ýn my opinion this case is a shamble and big shame for British Empire.I advise Queen to come forward and say BIG SORRY TO MENEZES's family. ilyas
- Ilyas Orhanli, England
Absolutely appalling and disgusting, no wonder nobody has any respect for the police.
As the other headline says, this truly is a whitewash.
- Dylan, London
I keep asking this question. How is it that someone is responsible in the 'Baby P' death, following a catalogue of errors and yet no-one is responsible for the death of Mr. Menezes following another series of errors?
- Paul Bradford, Monflanquin, France
What a travesty of justice absolutely disgusting the coroner should be ashamed,why on earth he did,nt let the jury make up their own minds is patently obvious he is part of the establishment and proceedes as such.I sincerely hope that John Charles,s family carry on with their quest for justice and that they are successful in putting the blame fairly and squarely where it belongs.British justice once the envy of the world don,t make me laugh,cover up is the name of the game.
- Roy C, Wigan
Funny no mention that he should not have been in the country in the first place and that he was here ilegally; this also contributed to his death.
- Brandon Thomas, London UK
The majority of comments on this site are at best ill informed and worst show a stupidity of the law. I hope they are not in the next carriage that holds a true suicide bomber, I suspect the next officer that has to shoot one dead will hesitate, you wont be so damning then - or maybe it will be WHY didnt they shoot. Unless you have seen the results of a suicide bomb you dont have the right to judge these officers.
My condolences to the family of Jean Charles
- Steve, Herts
I couldn't agree with you more Rogan. Everyone bashing the police now seems to forget that this tragic shooting of an innocent man occurred one week after the bombings on the tube and the bus. He had been identified as a potential suicide bomber and the police on the front line had to deal with it, and wounding of a suicide bomber is not enough, as the threat to kill and maim is there while he is alive.
In a perfect world this shouldn't happen, but to blame our police like this is ridiculous.
- John, Uk
Why can no one accept that, in the situation where there are suicide bombers around, there will always be the potential for this to happen.
if there is a suicide bomber, the only way to deal with it is to kill them as soon and as suddenly as possible. The police were, by accident, in a no win situation. IF he HAD been a bomber and the police had not shot him and he had detonated and killed dozens, what would the reaction have been?
Yes, the police made a lot of mistakes, but the reasons why he was shot was a combination of errors. He was the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time, he was misidentified, and killed in error.
The police have apologised, there is no more they can do, they can't bring him back.
However, we cant put the police in a position where they can't react as necessary.
The biggest error was to try and make excuses - the idea that the armed officers would have given a bomber time to detonate by warning him is laughable! If they did they were idiots. They did the right thing, in the right way, BUT, due to incorrect information, to the wrong person.
Sorry the ~De menezes family, we made a huge mistake. But, now let it lie.
- Johnw, Peterborough, Cambs
Please somebody correct me if I am wrong,at the time of this shooting were we not informed at every opportunity that Jean Charles was here on an expired visa,and that he should not have been in this country,this of course is no reason for him to have lost his life in this manor,but if this is correct,many including myself would say if he had not etc,etc,etc.
- Richard Williams, Camberley Surrey
Who planned the ludicrous, arrongant, impracticable OPERATION KRATOS, that called for summary execution in the streets of London? They never showed their faces. We should start there to bring justice to Menezes.
- Pabs, London
This is a tale of incompetence, lies, an innocent man mercilessly shot dead and the establishment cover up.
When will those that fix these things realize that the public are not stupid.
No one involved in this sorry episode should be considered for running the Met, ever.
- Harry H, London UK
Check your history, Dee. King John was forced to sign that document by the barons. And THEY were thinking more of themselves than Joe Public. Unless the history books have been doctored by socialist revision, that was well documented.
- Rogan, Irving
The jury should have ignored the Coroner and returned the verdict that they felt most appropriate, as is their right in a common law democracy (perhaps this is something we have ceased to be?), of Jury Nullification.
It is not the concept of Operation Kratos that is at fault, or the firearms team, who must have been in an unimaginably horrible position.
There are three groups of people responsible for the wrongful death of Mr DeMenezes:
1. Ian Bliar and Cressida Dick, the operation commander, for failing to maintain effective command and control of this incident, which resulted in Mr DeMenezes being wrongfully identified as a suicide bomber.
2. Islamist terrorists and their supporters, without whom we would have no need of Operation Kratos, or its like. It is this group that have visited the atrocity of suicide bombing upon us, and given NuLiebour the material it needed to fuel the bonfire of our ancient rights and freedoms.
3. The NuLiebour government, for failing to release the Police form their politically correct shackles and allowing them to properly use the wide ranging and effective laws that have been in place for many years, instead choosing to tinker with our constitutional rights and introduce new, unnecessary legislation making suspects of us all in the process.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster
Well, it looks like the terrorists have won. They have destabilized society into attacking itself, with the police, the frontline defence against the terrorists, being the primary target.
If you want to be so emotive about all this, think 'emotions' at the time it happened, straight after numerous bombs had gone off killing several innocents. As I recall people were loudly demanding that the police 'do something'. Based upon reaction intelligence an error was made in sending the police to take down a suspected bomber. To simply wound him, if he had been a bomber, would have given him the opportunity to do as he intended in the first place, killing both the police there and the surrounding civvies. The multiple head shots were to make sure that this did not happen - but no, people expecting unrealistic text-book instant reaction responses want this to be seen as rampant indiscipline and 'murder'.
In war, and that is what this is folks, innocents get harmed. Without question this is tragic. The reason this all happened, though, is because that was what the terrorists were setting out to do in the first place, create confusion and unrest.
Looks like they know what they're doing judging by these responses.
- Rogan, Irving
I hope the Menezes family pursue this disgusting whitewash.
- Neil, Gloucestershire, England.
King John was not known as a bleeding heart liberal.
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land”
Magna Carta article 39 AD 1215
Which court or jury issued a lawful judgement that authorised the police to kill Charles de Menezes?
Which Law or Act of Parliament authorised the police to kill Charles de Menezes?
- Dee, East London
Well, at least Cresida Dicks seemed happy, all smiles as she drove away from the hearing.
- John, manchester
The police evidence and the prejudiced nature of the inquiry makes me ashamed to be living In England, where an unlawful killig such as this one is plain to see, and a disgrace to run away from acknowledging, if only for the pain of his family
- Keith Price, Luton, England
I smell a rat and it smells like cover up.will you swallow the red pill or the blue pill. very murky indeed.
- Frank, stoke-on -trent uk
If I'd been on that jury I'd have held out for returning a narrative verdict. The incompetence of the police, and their efforts to cover it up, are disgraceful. At least the cover-up failed.
That said, the circumstances were unique and the police were honestly (though incompetently) trying to do their duty to protect the public from terrorists. An innocent man was killed by policemen, but I see him as much a victim of the terrorists as the fifty-some who were killed directly by their bombs. Unlawful killing? Something just short of that, I think.
- Nigel, London
Whilst any deaths are regretable, I hope that the Police will not hesitate to protect the public by shooting suspected terrorists in the future. I would prefer one death to a multitude that could have been avoided with a single shot. Then the nations blood will really boil with indignation.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke
The British justice system was once admired throughout the world. However, today's verdict puts paid to that idea! This is a travesty.
- Selwyn, Wrecsam, North Wales
Those responsible for this man's death are ultimately the suicide bombers and the thousands of would be murderers of the general public whom we continue to nurture in our midst. The police did not rise well to this episode, but were not malicious. We should do well to remember that violence breeds violence and fear and should seek to stop it right in its tracks instead of appeasing it.
- Helen, norwich
I often wondered why British police were not allowed to carry guns when almost all police in other countries at national and local levels do so. Now I know why. The UK police are simply disorganised and incapable of managing their business. They appear way over their heads in dealing with issues that are dealt with professionally and properly in most other countries yet display grotesque confidence and arrogance. Claiming unusual times is nonsense. If proper procedures were in place and carried out this innocent young man would still have his life to live. This is disgraceful. I only hope the murdered man's family can find the strength to live with the injustice they have experienced.
- Kr, Florence ITALY
the jury listened to the evidence and having been clearly stymied by the Coroner to avoid awkward situations arising if the "wrong" verdict was returned basically raised two fingers and came out with the only logical verdict they could. however, i think that if the family tries to sue then you will hear the government and police ranks closing with a bang audible in Brazil.
holding a man and shooting him in the head numerous times ain't justice its execution. who says we don't have the death penalty. not against that but make sure the authorities get it right.
- Arrow, edinburgh scotland
I am as sad as anyone about the unfortunate death of an innocent person. But, we should accept that we are living in unusual times. When terrorists strike, they follow no rules and kill scores of innocents. Police have a difficult job of preventing terrorist attacks on the basis of limited information and in a short time. With hindsight we can all calmly examine what the police did or did not. The question everyone should answer is next time the police have some information, do we want them to act quickly even though an innocent person may be caught in the cross-fire, or, do we want them to be so careful that they may miss preventing a major incident, resulting in killing of many innocents.
- Nat, New Malden
The Coroner appears to be off his head
Surely he coul have let the Jury return a verdict of Unlawful killing as a result of gross negligence by the Met Police.
I think an Unlawful murder verdict would mean that a police investigation would have to take place with the aim of identifying and charging and prosecuting the culprit.
The police should be prosecuted for their blatent neglect in this case.
So much for english justice
- Michael Groves, London
My understanding having followed this closely is that it is the intelligence that was provided to the officers who pulled the trigger that was wrong.
They killed him with the firm belief he was someone else.
The people who are responsible for this poor mans death are the middle managers and the intelligence branch of the met not CO19 firearms officers.
- Liberal Thinker, UK
I believe this was an unfortunate incident, terrible for the man's family but that they should let it go now. Nothing will bring him back and it must be extremely stressful for the Police officers involved. I feel very sorry for them and believe that going on and on about this is a waste of their time and of our money as tax payers.
- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx
Gary, if your son had been shot in the head serveral times, following a catalogue of errors by the police and then at subsequent hearings it was found that officers had changed their account of what had happened, that their controllers were a shambles, and that they basically gave false evidence in court, I would support you in your endeavour to claim for substantial damages.
However, if like the de Menezes family, you were so motivated, you could have got your hands on the money a lot sooner and a lot easier than the process that has been gone through.
Idiot.
- Md, London, UK
Another inquest, another whitewash, another "win" for the establishment.
Why am I not surprised?
- Robbie G, London
Such a travesty of Justice, this guy was unlawfully killed but the jury didnt have the option to say so, its like telling someone that a black cat is white, even though its actually white.
- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt
"Chief Inspector Martin Rush, a senior firearms instructor who led the pair's training, said: "They should be admired but they are actually being vilified and I think that is dreadfully unfortunate.""
Well he would say that, wouldn't he? The police have rightly been branded liars by the inquest jury, yet still they stick together and deny the evidence. No wonder they are feared and distrusted. That is what is 'dreadfully unfortunate'.
- 45govt, Barbados
Of course they claim it’s a white wash, to admit it was a tragedy and that the police made a horrible mistake but were acting with the best of intentions would put a big dent in their civil suit.
- Gary, london
