Morning:
8°c
No police charges over de Menezes shooting
Paul Cheston16 Feb 2009
No police officers will be prosecuted over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes despite the inquest jury's open verdict, Crown prosecutors announced today.
CPS lawyers said they had studied "inconsistencies" in evidence presented by police officers at the inquest, which ended in December.
They considered not only charging firearms officers with perjury but also high-ranking officers with gross negligence manslaughter over the confusion which led to the shooting.
However, the decision was taken that there was insufficient evidence against officers for a criminal trial.
The inquest jury had rejected the police's claims that a warning had been shouted at the innocent Brazilian and he that he moved forward threateningly before officers opened fire at Stockwell Tube station in July 2005.
Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times after being mistaken for a suicide bomber the day after the 21/7 attempted attacks.
Banned by the coroner Sir Michael Wright from returning a verdict of unlawful killing, the jury was nevertheless highly critical of the Met's attempts to prove that the victim had been lawfully killed.
Mr de Menezes's family were furious at what they described as "a complete whitewash" by the coroner and demanded charges be brought.
But today Stephen O'Doherty, reviewing lawyer, CPS Special Crime Division, said no further action would be taken.
"I conducted a further review of the case in light of the fresh evidence uncovered by the inquest," said Mr Doherty.
"I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes."
Reader views (15)
Surk,London,Well another veiled insult from somebody who knows nothing about me what so ever, to be called a member of the so called pc brigade just because i wont a better and more efficient police force is beyond me.Interesting then that the jury did not believe the story of the events the police portrayed in court, hence there verdict.At the end of the day one innocent man had been killed and as a result the real bombers were still on the streets of London,not my idea of good enough.And i bet all those who think thay did what thay thought was right would take a different line if a bomb had been detonated the next day on the tube while the police were preoccupied with the wrong person.
- Kev, London-UK, 15/02/2009 13:49
Report abuse
If the "victim" was White British would there be as much fuss? You know I very much doubt it......
- Andy, London, 14/02/2009 13:27
Report abuse
As an ex-policeman I was apalled, but not surprised, at the shambles which accompanied th so-called operation to apprehend this man. As far as I could deduce from the evidence there were extremely serious discrepencies in the evidence, which the Inquest jury commented upon. Without any doubt whatever there was evidence to suggest both perjury and gross negligence against individuals had been committed, both of which were major factors in this innocent man's death. It should be for a jury to decide culpabilitynot CPS lawyers. Once again armed police get away with acting like out of control macho cowboys, or as one correspondent states "trigger happy louts" - this was not the first time. As for the correspondent who maintains that it would be worse in Brazil, I would point out that we are not living in Brazil.
- Neil, Gloucestershire, England., 14/02/2009 04:40
Report abuse
I think under such difficult circumstances, police did what they thought was right, My credit goes to them,Kev are you member of PC brigade? www.faithfreedom.org
- Surk, london, 14/02/2009 01:17
Report abuse
It is not lawful to shoot to kill a person, even someone who has attempted mass murder, unless that person is or is honestly believed to be posing an immediate threat to life and limb.
The inquest jury determined that the two firearms officers were not truthful in claiming that a warning was given, were not truthful in saying that Menezes advanced aggressively toward them "closing us down". Surveillance officers are adamant the words "definitely our man" were not spoken. The intelligence officer insists he did not use the words "deadly determined and up for it". The jury did not believe C12 and C2, they had lied, and lied again on oath.
Crucially, C12 and C2 claim they "honestly believed" the man in front of them was about to detonate an (unspecified) explosive device. Is that claim any more believable, is that claim at all credible? I think not. Coroner Sir Michael Wright fell short of justly asking the Inquest jury that question, and now Stephen O'Doherty of the CPS has made sure that no jury ever will be.
- Steve Kay, Woodbridge, UK, 14/02/2009 00:03
Report abuse
Sure enough, Mr. David. The guilt is Jean Charles' own, isn1t it? afterall, having an arab complexion! Guess that if he was blond and of fair skin, he would not been mistaken. And no warning, no chance to defend himseld, if only verbally. That's what I call good job, huh! If Brazilian Police would do worse, no surprise. But mistake such as this, for a elite british policeman team, is a real surprise, wouldn't you agree? Jean Charles is guilty of his own death perpetrated by other, is that what the British Justice seems to be stating? And it would be outrageous. I am outraged with this decision. Shame on you.
- Milton Coelho, Brasilia-DF, Brazil, 13/02/2009 22:45
Report abuse
So two lying cops, and their incompetent bosses, in particular Cressida Dick, whose dithering started the whole sorry chain of events, have got away with the manslaughter of an innocent man. The public and the media are roaring for the blood of bankers who have not killed anyone, and whose activities were encouraged by a gung-ho Chancellor. The bankers will be made to suffer, but the killer cops have just gone back to work, free to kill an innocent person the next time they cock something up. Cressida Dick was promoted as a thank you for her incompetence. This country owes Londoners, and the de Menezes family, a lot more than the whitewash that has been poured over the Met. Until the Met has put its house n order and sacked the responsible officers (or, even better, put them in the dock) justice will not have been done.
- Simon Evans, Devizes, Wiltshire, 13/02/2009 21:44
Report abuse
Liberal Thinker..Wrong, if you took the time to read the Court transcripts at NO time did the surveillance team ID him or say he was a suicide bomber ,,FACT
Back to you
- Andy, surrey, 13/02/2009 19:04
Report abuse
what did you expect? Long live the PLOD.
- Dai, london, 13/02/2009 18:26
Report abuse
Our policemen were doing a good job,would it be the same in Brazil ? I very much doubt it.
- David,Chertsey, Chertsey.UK., 13/02/2009 18:11
Report abuse
The most worrying part is the fact that the police repeatedly lied.
For example, their claim that they shouted "Armed Police" was totally at odds with their training, which was to prevent a potential "bomber" by surprise with use of overwhelming force, before any device could be detonated.
- Kris, London, 13/02/2009 18:06
Report abuse
An indisputable tragedy, but the police officers who confronted the man they truly believed was a suicide bomber, showed raw courage I can only wonder at. Reading your comment Kev I know for sure you don't have that kind of courage. Take a look at the action of the Bombay police when they faced their terrorist, they ran to save themselves, give these brave men their due.
- Frank, Dorchester Dorset, 13/02/2009 17:29
Report abuse
no serving officer on the gun squad can ever be charged for any shooting for the simple fact that they have their guvnors and the political establishment over a barrel.
if one gets charged, let alone convicted, all the others will refuse to bear arms citing the consequences. thus faster than a speeding bullet there is no armed response unit.
- M.O'Brien, london.uk, 13/02/2009 17:16
Report abuse
Kev, way to go basing your conclusions on a docu-drama!
It wasnt the CO19 guys who pulled the trigger that are at fault. They genuinely believed they were going after a suicide bomber.
It is the surveillance teams that told the CO19 officers that they were following a suicide bomber that need to take responsibility.
- Liberal Thinker, UK, 13/02/2009 16:35
Report abuse
No surprises there then,having seen the recreated TV documentary on the shooting i just know if i had been half as professional at my job i would have been dismissed,not to mention killing a innocent man. They behaved like a bunch of trigger happy louts in my view.
- Kev, London-UK, 13/02/2009 15:59
Report abuse
