The 10 jurors returned an open verdict after listening to more than seven weeks of evidence at the inquest into the 27-year-old's death.
The jurors presented a series of devastating criticisms of police actions. They rejected a firearms officer's claim that he shouted "armed police" before opening fire at Mr de Menezes.They also disputed that 27-year-old Mr de Menezes had walked towards officers before he was killed.
The jurors concluded that six police failings caused or contributed to the innocent man's death.
A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the terror suspect Hussain Osman for the surveillance team.
A failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.
The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.
The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team as the firearms officers were approaching Stockwell Station.
There were significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and with New Scotland Yard.
A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop.
Below is a press statement by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the campaign and their lawyers Birnberg Peirce following the jury’s verdict.
“Today is a very important day for our family and campaign for justice. We have spoken to Jean’s family in Brazil and they like us feel vindicated by the jury’s verdict. The jury’s verdict is a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told. It is clear from the verdict today that the jury could have gone further had they not been gagged by the Coroner. We maintain that Jean Charles de Menezes was unlawfully killed” – Patricia Armani Da Silva, cousin of Jean Charles on behalf of all of the family.
The family’s legal team argued that evidence heard by the jury provided sufficient grounds for the jury to return unlawful killing (murder) in respect of the two police shooters, C12 and C2 as well unlawful killing (gross negligence manslaughter) in respect of the actions of three of the command team. We also submitted that, in accordance with Article 2 (ECHR) the jury should be permitted to return a meaningful narrative verdict that could identify all the police failings that caused or contributed to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The five legal teams representing supposedly separate interests of the police combined ranks to oppose our submissions, maintain that the evidence only supported a lawful killing or open verdict. The coroner ruled in favour of the police. As a consequence the family sought to challenge the decision, lodging an urgent application at the High Court. Mr Justice Silber considered the challenge in relation to the narrative verdict only but ruled that the coroner had a wide discretion and he would not interfere with his ruling.
The family considered that the coroner had effectively gagged the jury. Any verdict returned by them would have at best limited meaning and would not have the effect of holding the police accountable for any failings. At that stage, having exhausted all legal avenues, the family instructed their legal team to cease participating in the inquest proceedings.
We have lodged grounds to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Silber and our judicial review challenge of the coroner’s decision in respect of unlawful killing remains to be considered.
To date, not one police officer involved has been held personally accountable for failings that led to the death of Jean Charles. In fact the two most senior officers in the command team have been promoted. The law as it stands, effectively provides legal immunity for police officers who shoot innocent people in the cause of protecting the public.
This case raises questions of critical constitutional importance. Should our armed police service be protected from meaningful criticism (let alone criminal sanction) or are the public entitled to go about their day to day business free from the fear that they could be shot dead without warning if mistaken for a suspected terrorist?"
Related link: The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign
Published by Mike Hitchen, Mike Hitchen Consulting
Putting principles before profits
This blog will be on holiday from Dec 15 2008 -Jan 12 2009!
Putting principles before profits
This blog will be on holiday from Dec 15 2008 -Jan 12 2009!
