July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum -> Jean Charles de Menezes' Inquest: Media Coverage

Jean Charles de Menezes' Inquest: Media Coverage, News reports from the Inquest

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Bridget

Posted: May 26 2009, 04:08 PM

Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 10,528
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05

QUOTE

De Menezes officer cleared of deception

By Jack Doyle, Press Association

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Mr de Menezes was mistaken for a bomber and shot dead

A senior police surveillance officer who admitted tampering with his evidence during the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was cleared today by an official investigation.

The Special Branch Officer deleted text from his computer note before speaking to the inquest in October last year.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said the officer, known as "Owen", had acted naively, but found no evidence of "deliberate deception".

The revelation prompted accusations of a "sickening cover-up" by family members of the Brazilian, who was shot dead at Stockwell Underground station on July 22, 2005.

The note referred to a comment from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, who was in charge of the police operation on the day.

It referred to her as saying Mr de Menezes could "run on to Tube as not carrying anything".

"Owen" failed to refer to the note both when the IPCC began investigating the death in 2005 and during the 2007 health and safety trial, the IPCC found.

On October 7 last year, a week before he gave evidence to the inquest, he removed the line of text before handing the note to Metropolitan Police lawyers.

The police watchdog found Owen "acted alone" in failing to disclose the note and then deleting it.

Its report concluded the officer had shown a "lack of understanding" of how he should behave, but had not committed an offence.

It found: "There was no evidence of deliberate deception in this instance by the MPS as a whole or any individual within it."

The officer, a supervisor in the operations room at Scotland Yard, told the inquest he altered his version of events more than two weeks into the inquest because it was "misleading" and not "relevant".

The report found the officer's role on July 22 was "peripheral" and he had a "limited" understanding of what was being discussed.

IPCC deputy chairman Deborah Glass said the officer had been "consistent" in his explanation both to the inquest and to the IPCC over why he deleted the note.

She said: "Owen himself brought the existence of his note to public attention; there was little chance of his computer note, which had been on the system since 2005, coming to light otherwise.

"He has been consistent in his explanation, both to the inquest and to this investigation, that he deleted the reference to the 'management discussion' because it was inaccurate and misleading.

"Owen should have revealed the existence of the note when requested by the IPCC investigation in 2005, and subsequently disclosed it at the Health and Safety trial in 2007.

"That he did not do so showed a lack of understanding of what was required of him, but was not an offence.

"Although this lack of understanding needs to be addressed by additional training, it does in this instance provide an explanation for what occurred."

The full deleted line read: "CD - can run on to tube as not carrying anything. Persuaded by U/I (Unidentified) male amongst management."

The inquest heard that after retrieving his notes "Owen" said he "flicked through" them and saw there were a "few mistakes".

He told the court: "The other thing I have done is delete the line I had identified as wrong and misleading when I did the statement."

When asked why, he replied: "The detail changes do not materially affect the statement."

Ms Dick previously claimed she believed Mr de Menezes posed a "great threat" as officers pursued him.

Yasmin Khan, spokeswoman for the Justice4Jean campaign, accused the IPCC of failing to hold police officers to account.

She said: "It doesn't matter if you are a policeman fiddling notes after a shooting or a politician fiddling expenses on the sly, no one should be above the law.

"This latest decision is one of a long line of IPCC decisions which have led every police officer involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes off scot-free.

"This weak and woefully poor excuse of a watchdog must now be overhauled and replaced with a robust body that can actually hold police officers to account."

amirrortotheenemy

Posted: Oct 21 2009, 11:32 PM

Group: J7 Forum Team
Posts: 4,026
Member No.: 235
Joined: 6-November 06

Liberty, Justice and Inquest touting the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest as the benchmark for inquests dealing with sensitive 'national security' and policing concerns and thus setting the lower bounds for the discussion of how such inquests should be handled

QUOTE

19. In addition to the powerful safeguards provided for by these amendments we urge parliamentarians to remember that the amendments will be combined with a robust and sophisticated inquest system that has for centuries provided justice for the bereaved as well as protecting national security interests. Inquests (and jury inquests especially) invariably deal with material that is sensitive for one reason or another. The de Menezes inquest was a case in point and involved the consideration of evidence that was highly sensitive, such as the details of the Metropolitan Police's operational response to the threat posed by suicide bombers (including Operation Kratos), the assistance they had had from countries such as Israel and the USA in developing this, and other aspects of undercover and surveillance operations. The widespread concern that the Metropolitan Police had been operating a �shoot to kill� policy without any parliamentary approval or oversight made it particularly sensitive. A large number of witnesses also sought anonymity before giving their evidence. In fact, the de Menezes inquest managed to deal effectively with highly sensitive evidence and the protection of witnesses whilst remaining largely open and accessible to all, showing that it is perfectly possible to for safeguards to be appropriately applied on a case by case basis. This was done in several ways:

� A High Court judge was appointed as coroner and was able to consider PII applications by the police in respect of highly confidential policies and documents. National security issues were clearly central to the subject matter of the inquest, most importantly the Metropolitan Police strategy for dealing with suicide bombers. Where needed, the coroner granted full PII in relation to certain documents. However, he ruled that many of the documents could be provided to the legal teams, on strict undertakings as to confidentiality, not making copies, keeping the material secure, etc. On that basis the family's lawyers were permitted to see highly sensitive documents, and to question witnesses based on that material. In relation to the most sensitive material, a summary was prepared of the material that could be shared with the family and their lawyers were provided with the material underlying the summary (again on strict undertakings).

� Where discussion in open court touched upon the contents of any such protected documents, agreements were reached in the absence of the jury and the public as to what could be explored and, although some aspects were regarded as too sensitive to be investigated publicly, overall a reasonably fair exploration of the issues was allowed whilst national security and other policing concerns were protected.

� Suitable arrangements were made for the protection of witnesses without the need for certification. There were over 40 police officers who worked in highly sensitive anti-terrorist operations or covert surveillance whose witness evidence was required at the inquest. They were all granted anonymity by the coroner as a result. They gave evidence from behind a screen in court, and careful provision was made at the venue for their arrival and departure to protect their identities. The inquest was nevertheless able to hear evidence from those witnesses.

� The jury, the family, one of their supporters and the lawyers were all permitted to see the witnesses giving evidence so as to assess their demeanour (the police having carried out police checks on the family members and their chosen supporter beforehand). This was done without any risk or compromise to the identity of any of those witnesses whose anonymity has been maintained despite the huge attention from media organisations.

Joint Liberty, Justice and Inquest briefing on amendments to the Coroners and Justice bill (PDF)

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | de Menezes Inquest Forum | Next Newest »