The coroner gets his way: Open verdict at Menezes inquest. No pigs blamed...

from various sources, 12 December 2008:

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes today rejected Scotland Yard's claim that he was lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorism operation. Banned by the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, from returning a verdict of unlawful killing, the five men and five women decided on an open verdict – the most critical that was available to them.

In a series of answers to a list of crucial questions, they dismissed the testimony of the senior firearms officer who shot De Menezes – suggesting they did not believe the officer was acting in self-defence.

Press statement from the family

from j4j, 12 December 2008:

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?

For further information and background information visit: inquest.justice4jean.org

++++

Jury's response to the Coroner's questionnaire

from j4j, 12 December 2008:

Jurors were asked and answered the following questions:

"Did firearms officer C12 shout armed police?"

NO

The police officers on the tube train all insisted that a warning was shouted before two opened fire, but passengers sitting in the carriage said they heard no warning. The jury believed the passengers and rejected the evidence of the police

"Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?"

YES

"Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor?"

NO

Officer C12 said that he fired fatal shots because jean stood up and moved towards a gun pointed at his head. The jury didn’t believe this evidence. They accepted that Jean had stood up, but did not believe he had moved forwards in a manner suggesting he might be about to detonate a bomb.

"Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes;

a. "The pressure on police after the suicide attacks in July 2005."

CANNOT DECIDE

The Metropolitan Police have always maintained – and continue to argue – that police officers were under enormous pressure in the aftermath of the 7th July bombings and the attempted suicide attacks on 21st July 2005. Acting Commissioner Paul Stephenson said today, “July 2005 brought with it unparalleled challenges for the Met and the people of London including the unique situation where there were four failed suicide bombers on the run.” But the jury, after many days of deliberation, were unable to agree that this was a key contributory factor in Jean’s death.

b. "A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of failed bomber Hussain Osman to surveillance officers."

YES

The jury concluded that the fact that surveillance officers watching the flats in Scotia Road had only seen a poor photo from Hussain Osman’s gym membership card, when there was a much clearer image available from his wedding day (found at the scene of the attempted bombing), was a far more important factor than the inability of officers to properly identify Jean.

c. "A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport."

YES

The police operation was supposed to stop anyone leaving the flats so they could be identified and checked, away from the property so as not to reveal the surveillance operation to any would-be bomber.. However, when Jean left for work, the operation was in chaos: there was no firearms teams in position to stop suspects.

d. "The general difficulty in providing identification of the man under surveillance in the time available."

NO

The surveillance officer closest to the flat, codenamed 'Frank', was apparently relieving himself as Jean left the property, leaving the officers following Jean to establish his identity. But this error was compounded because Jean was not stopped as he boarded a bus, or before entering Stockwell station. The jury clearly believed that there was more than enough time available to identify him.

e. "The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion."

NO

This suggestion was one of the most bizarre – that by acting innocently, Jean was suspicious.

Officers claimed he was acting nervously and strangely, standing on the bus stairwell and being twitchy. When his bus reached Brixton town centre, he got off and walked towards the tube station before doubling back and getting back on another bus. However, the jury did not feel this behaviour was a factor – after all, Brixton station was closed amidst tightened security from the previous day’s incident and Jean was late for work. His supposedly ‘suspicious’ behaviour was shared by many Londoners on 22nd July 2005.

f. "The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and firearms officers.

YES

g. "The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known by the command team as firearms teams were approaching Stockwell Tube."

YES

h. "Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams on the ground."

YES

i. "Failure to conclude at the time that surveillance officers could have been used to carry out the stop on Mr de Menezes at Stockwell."

YES

The jury were clearly convinced that the repeated communications failures between the surveillance team and a chaotic Operations Room was an important contributory factor. This included the descent of positive identification into little more than guesswork, the failure of DAC Cressida Dick’s instructions to stop Jean from entering Stockwell tube station to reach those on the ground and the evidence from firearms officer C12, who claimed he had heard the surveillance officers positively identify Jean over the radio, when other claimed this message had not be given.

The family believe that unbalanced briefing given to firearms officers, who were evidently ready to deliver a critical shot to any suspect suicide bomber, without being warned of the risks of uncertain identification, meant that these officers were sent into a situation where the chances of arresting a suspect as opposed to shooting them dead were almost negligible.

[original article]

++++

Extraordinary scenes end Jean Charles de Menezes inquest

Friday, December 12th, 2008

By Sandra Laville | The moment the family of Jean Charles de Menezes attempted to force their way past a group of private security guards into the inquest courtroom marked the lowest point in a multi-million pound hearing into the fatal shooting of an innocent man by the Metropolitan police.

Any semblance of trust between the relatives and the establishment, in the person of the coroner and the court, dissolved into a volley of recriminations and accusations after Sir Michael Wright made a series of decisions that made the family question the openness and impartiality of proceedings.

The dramatic scenes, which can only now be reported after the lifting of a media gagging order imposed by Wright, came on December 5, one hour before jurors were sent out to begin their deliberations on a verdict.

After two IPCC investigations into the shooting of the innocent Brazilian man and a crown court trial, the hopes of the family were high that the inquest, held in the surroundings of the Oval cricket ground amid much publicity, would establish the facts of the fatal shooting and come to a verdict that accurately represented the events of the day.

What they wanted, the relatives said, was some sort of accountability. What they believe they were given was a slanted inquiry, held back by the restrictions on the verdict imposed by the coroner. They believe he forced the jury into a corner, withdrawing any freedom to return a critical narrative on the shooting or to find unlawful killing - either on the grounds that an individual or individuals had committed murder or manslaughter.

These decisions began a week of escalating tension that exploded into open hostility between the family and the court and resulted in the relatives withdrawing their legal team and their cooperation.

“It is increasingly clear in the last week that the coroner’s impartiality has simply disappeared,” said Jasmin Khan of the Justice4Jean campaign. “That is one of the reasons why the family felt they had no choice but to withdraw their cooperation.”

The relatives had hoped the jury would be told of their decision to withdraw before they retired to consider their verdicts, but the barristers for the police and the coroner agreed that only the blandest of statements about the absence of the family’s legal team could be given to the jury.

“The less said the better,” said Richard Horwell QC, representing the commissioner of the Met.

The coroner had earlier ordered the public and the media to leave the courtroom while he completed his summing up to the jury last week, giving no reason except to say he had reached a “sensitive” point in the hearing.

When the public refused amid repeated requests for clarification of his ruling, there was a standoff for an hour and 40 minutes. The public refused to leave and the coroner refused to return to court.

At one point the team of bouncers with walkie-talkie microphones on their shirt cuffs who had been hired to provide security at the inquest were seen huddling in a corner. “We can’t use violence, that’s clear,” one was overheard saying.

Eventually the coroner’s orders were upheld and the public, including supporters of the family, left the court.

The relatives were held back by security guards and kept out of the courtroom while barristers, police and the coroner filed in. Having lost all faith that those inside would honour the principle that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”, they attempted to storm into the courtroom.

Today, although the hearing is over and the verdict delivered, the accusations, bitterness and recriminations continue from those who believe that the inquest was never an open, impartial examination of the facts.

[original article]

See also: TIMES: Disgruntled De Menezes family could challenge verdict after saga