Tuesday May 26, 2009, 4:17 pm
Related -

Charges Dropped Against Police In de Menezes Shooting 20 May, 2007
By Paul Mitchell

World Socialist Web

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has dropped disciplinary charges against 11 front-line firearms and surveillance officers involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on July 22, 2005.

The officers were part of an anti-terrorist squad that was investigating the failed explosions on London’s transport system the previous day. They shot the innocent 27-year-old electrician from Brazil seven times in the head on a tube train at Stockwell station.

The disciplinary charges stood little chance of success following the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) last year to drop criminal proceedings against the officers on charges of evidence tampering and obstructing public justice. The CPS justified its decision on the basis that there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”

IPCC chair Nick Hardwick defended his May 11 decision on the same grounds, saying, “On the basis of the evidence I have available to me now or any development that might reasonably be foreseen, I have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of disciplinary charges being upheld against any of the firearms or surveillance officers involved.”

Hardwick continued, “In reviewing the original material I am struck again by the challenge facing officers of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) following the carnage [the London bombings] on 7 July 2005.”

Hardwick suggested one of the surveillance officers should receive “management advice” in relation to “action” he took after the incident—believed to be a reference to his alteration of a log book recording the day’s events.

Hardwick also postponed a decision regarding four more senior officers, including the commander of the “shoot-to-kill” operation Cressida Dick—recently promoted to deputy assistant commissioner—until after the trial of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for breaching health and safety legislation. The Met faces one charge, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, for failing in its duty of care towards de Menezes—the only prosecution now planned—scheduled to start in October.

Citing the same reason, the IPCC has also postponed publication of the Stockwell I report that led to the charges against the officers in the first place, and the Stockwell II report that examined the truth of comments made by the MPS Commissioner Sir Ian Blair after the shooting.

A spokesman for the MPS said, “We acknowledge and welcome today’s recommendation...that 11 officers should not face a disciplinary tribunal.... We are pleased for these officers and their families who have faced much uncertainty.”

Patricia da Silva Armani, Jean Charles’s cousin, said, “I cannot believe the police have been able to get away with this. It is disgraceful the IPCC can make such a decision—they are letting the police get away with murder. First officers killed my cousin, then they lied about it and now the officers are walking away without any punishment. It is a travesty of justice and another slap in the face for our family. The police officers’ lives go on as normal while we exist in turmoil, fighting to get the answers and the justice we deserve.”

The family’s solicitor, Harriet Wistrich, said it was “premature” and “highly unusual” for the officers to be cleared before the conclusion of an inquest or health and safety prosecution. “The family are again gravely disappointed that exculpatory decisions are being made about officers directly responsible for the killing of an innocent man before they have had full access to the evidence and before any of that evidence has been tested in court,” Wistrich said.

“In our experience it is highly unusual for such decisions to be made prior to the conclusion of any criminal and inquest proceedings. We can see no advantage in making this early announcement, other than to provide relief to the officers facing potential disciplinary charges. Whilst the officers are spared that ongoing anxiety, the family are given no relief to their own agony, grief and anxiety caused by their lack of access to all the evidence surrounding the shooting of their loved one.”

Wistrich added that her legal team believed there was a reasonable prospect of conviction at a disciplinary tribunal and that a prosecution could itself reveal new evidence. She explained that the IPCC’s decision meant that if new evidence did now emerge, police officers could argue that any further charges were an “abuse of process.”

The decision could now prejudice the family’s application to the House of Lords for a review of the CPS’s failure to bring criminal charges against the officers, she explained. The family believed criminal charges for manslaughter through gross negligence could still be brought against Dick and the three other senior officers, and “ultimately that all the officers about whom evidence emerges of wrongdoing that led to this wrongful death are ultimately rendered fully accountable.”

Despite the tenacious campaigning and hopes of the de Menezes family, however, all the evidence points to the opposite happening. There have only been two instances of police officers ever facing charges of manslaughter or murder, neither of which resulted in a prosecution. Most cases have been abandoned, using the pretext that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

In the de Menezes case, the refusal to allow the prosecution of those involved raises more serious issues than other police killings. His execution revealed the existence of a previously secret “shoot-to-kill” policy known as Operation Kratos, agreed to by Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Home Secretary David Blunkett without any public debate. In turn, Operation Kratos sits at the top of a huge body of legislation enacted by the government that has empowered the police to act as judge, jury and executioner on the basis of the so-called “war against terror.”

It is for this reason that even disciplinary prosecution of a single officer was considered intolerable. Not only would it open the door to demands for the prosecution of leading figures within the MPS, but it would raise questions over the dangers posed to the public by granting such repressive powers to the police. Inevitably, it would become a focus for political opposition to the government itself. The cover-up surrounding Operation Kratos is one more link in the chain of lies used by the government to justify its predatory foreign policy and the accompanying erosion of fundamental democratic rights at home.

http://www.countercurrents.org/mitchell200507.htm

Tuesday May 26, 2009, 4:18 pm
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."

Tuesday May 26, 2009, 4:28 pm
Note to all- comments are in the wrong order due to glitch!

Wednesday May 27, 2009, 3:07 pm
The police are above the law and it's been proved time after time. They have been put above the law by politicians but there is no excuse in saying 'I was following orders' - murder is murder. Along with the policemen who did this, the one who killed him and the others who held him down, Tony Blair and Blunkett should be tried for murder if this shoot-to-kill policy was instigated by them. What happened to the witnesses who saw that day a frightened man, without a rucksack, being held down and shot in the head? For what earthly reason was this done? They gave him no warning that it was actually police who were chasing him. So if we run from the police and we don't know it's the police, we can be shot and that's ok? There will always be a nice cover-up so the bloodthirsty can get off scot-free? This is one of the most shameful episodes of Blair's rule. And he sleeps at night while he makes millions on the back of having been Bush's poodle in the so-called 'war on terror'. He is a peace envoy? How laughable is that? He is a war criminal and the man who destroyed liberty in the UK. Shoot-to-kill, secret courts, secret evidence, thought-crime, cosying up to dictators around the globe, outsourcing torture. I wish there were a hell he could be consigned to.

Wednesday May 27, 2009, 3:44 pm
Thanks Eleanor, it's not just UKs Parliament that rotten to the core.
I fully agree with Yasmin Khan -

:"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 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."

I'll check out any actions to take on this and post 'em here.

Wednesday May 27, 2009, 4:51 pm
Noted , thanks !!!

Wednesday May 27, 2009, 5:29 pm
NOTED. Thanks. A cop acted 'naively' and deleted evidence?? Yeah right......and Santa Claus is alive and well and living in NY City.......... what they expect people to believe is amazingly disgusting........

Wednesday May 27, 2009, 10:23 pm
Crooked cops covering up
for crooked cops. How can
anyone ever expect justice
in a system like this?
Bless your hearts, Pete and
Eleanor, your cops are as corrupt
and evil as any to be found in any
American city....maybe worse?
noted sadly :-(

Thursday May 28, 2009, 1:28 am
Thanks all for front paging, and great to see ya Tim!
'Evil' , 'corrupt' and 'disgusting' are suitable adjectives for this blatant injustice.

If you're thinking of travelling on the London underground anytime, it's prob a good idea to wear an armband with the logo provided with this article.

As a Brit, for what it's worth, I'd like to offer my sincere apologies to the Menezes family for this fine example of British ' justice' at work. I am sure there are millions like me who feel the same sense of fury & revulsion at the treatment of Jean Charles and his family by the UK authorities. I have a feeling that this isn't the end of the matter....

Thursday May 28, 2009, 2:05 am
Thanks Pete and noted. Yup, looks like it happens everywhere, sadly!

Thursday May 28, 2009, 8:40 am
The IPCC’s Inexhaustible Supply Of Whitewash
26 May, 2009 — RickB

The police officer, who was granted anonymity at the inquest (because who wants an accountable non secret police force) did these things-

Before he gave evidence, he revealed that he had made a note on the Metropolitan police computer in late July 2005, before he made his original statement in November 2005. He had then accessed and altered the note in October 2008 before handing it to the Met’s lawyers.

Owen had been present in New Scotland Yard’s room 1600, which was under the direct command of Commander Cressida Dick on 22 July 2005, although he was not within the nucleus of senior officers commanding the operation, the IPCC said.

The text he deleted read: “Management discussion. CD [Cressida Dick]: can run onto Tube as not carrying anything. Persuaded otherwise by UI [unidentified] male amongst management”.

The independent investigation found Owen had acted alone both in failing to disclose his note, as required by the IPCC in 2005, and in redacting it on 7 October 2008.

So today the IPCC concluded-

But the IPCC said today there was no evidence of deliberate deception in this instance by the Met as a whole or any individual within it.

Bear in mind he is a Special Branch officer, they liaise with the intelligence services, they are literally secret police, he gave evidence anonymously and is now found to be blameless while Dick has been promoted. What does this note suggest? That prior to Jean Charles de Menezes being shot at point blank range multiple times the officer in charge was thinking he was not carrying anything, ie. not a bomb threat. The common refrain of the killers (the coached and rehearsed testimony they were able to collude on) was they were acting in self defence because they claim to have believed he could have been a suicide bomber.

That she was dissuaded or failed to communicate her judgement to the armed personnel means the ‘UI [unidentified] male amongst management‘ bears great responsibility for the killing, as does Cressida Dick who is shown to make weak & faulty judgements and bad communication shows up these professional paramilitaries to be utter chumps. Clearly evidence was concealed then altered to protect senior officers. But no such issues will be addressed because the IPCC doesn’t think it important or that any malfeasance has occurred in relation to the note. They are as capable at investigating abuses of power by the police as Tony Blair is at not lying a country into war.

Best case: The armed security forces, licensed to employ state violence couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.

Worst case: Execution by state paramilitaries protected from legal responsibility by the establishment.

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.”

http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-ipccs-inexhaustible-supply-of-whitewash/

Thursday May 28, 2009, 8:44 am
Getting away with murder - the IPCC report on menezes case (2nd August 2007)

The IPCC's final report, released today, into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes confirms that all police officers involved are to be cleared. The chief anti-terrorist officer, Andy Hayman, is "heavily criticised" for not telling his boss what really happened on July 22 2005. Sir Ian Blair, also cleared, apparently didn't know the true story until the next day, despite the pair having a briefing just hours after the shooting. This contradicts Sir Ian's denials that he was kept in the dark when he spoke on the Today programme in December 2005. But then this whole saga is riddled with contradictions, as the police have shamefully attempted to cover up what really happened and clear themselves of any blame.

We were misled to believe that De Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket containing explosives and that he leapt over the ticket barriers at Stockwell tube station, and ran down the escalators ignoring police calls to stop. In reality he couldn't have behaved more normally, even pausing to pick up a paper, before using his ticket to pass through the barriers.

Sir Ian said on the day: "As I understand the situation, the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions" and a Scotland Yard statement added: "His clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their suspicions." Of course, it turned out Sir Ian's understanding was a complete and utter misunderstanding, and that the police's suspicions were just wrong. Attempts to exonerate themselves by pointing to the "unprecedented challenges" they faced with four suicide bombers on the loose, were not good enough.

For the uncovering of what really happened we have to thank Lana Vandenberghe, who paid the price for revealing the truth, as her leak formed the basis of an ITV News investigation into the shooting of De Menezes. She lost her job at the IPCC, was evicted by her landlady, arrested and treated harshly by the police. The harassment caused by the whole episode turned her into a recluse. She wasn't the only one. ITV News producer Neil Garrett and his girlfriend - the link between Vandenberghe and Garrett - were arrested.

They both spent hours in a cell and were bailed on a few occasions. While inside, Garrett's pregnant girlfriend was deprived of food and drink, and given a blanket full of lice. Unknown to him at the time, Garrett's flat was raided and turned upside down. But thanks to these individuals, and despite the police's attempts at obfuscation, the public now know that De Menezes looked anything but a terrorist, and was just an innocent man like anyone of us, caught up in the irresponsible actions of the police.

The 11 other police officers involved were cleared in May this year. In this final report, three officers have ensured the IPCC have re-edited it, removing criticisms made against them, after complaints about the IPCC "breaching procedural rules". Officers involved also edited the official log, but the CPS is not going to press charges. A police source said: "There is a sense that the IPCC, having failed to recommend any action against any of the officers involved in the shooting, itself needed a scapegoat."

Try telling this to the mother and father of Jean Charles de Menezes. The suggestion there was no scapegoat for July 22 is yet another example of the police shirking responsibility in this case. Try telling them that criticisms of three officers had to be withdrawn because the IPCC hadn't correctly followed its guidelines. What guidelines did the police follow on that July 22 morning and in its aftermath? What guidelines did they follow when dealing with Vandenberghe, Garrett, and his girlfriend?

This miscarriage of justice will blow over soon, once the dust quickly settles on this final report. The shrine to De Menezes at Stockwell tube station must remain, so people will never forget how an innocent man was killed, and that those responsible are continuing to police the streets of London.

http://www.endofempire.org/news_eoe.php?page=762

Thursday May 28, 2009, 9:27 am
Ive little to add pete only that all our systems need to be transparent and adjudged independantly. The british people saw with their own eyes what happened in a news report.where the officer stood right on top of mr Menezes as he shot him five times in the head.the reaction stemming from this is that youths will carry weapons now as all live in fear of mistaken identity. We in britain at least need a major overhaul of all our supposed services, as since neo labour has come into power we have become a shame in the face of the world.

Thursday May 28, 2009, 2:22 pm
Thanks Pete. It has always been a tenet of British law that ignorance is no defense. This has, it now appears, been modified by 'unless you are a policeman'. This sad, sorry affair has been lied about from day one, and the media briefing given by the then Met. Police Commissioner Blair was soon shown to be a complete fabrication/misrepresentation of the true facts. Who brifed him, if he did not cook up the 'story' himself? Someone lied in an effort to cover up the fatal mistake/incompetence - who? There has been a complete whitewash of police responsibility for the death of this innocent young man. Will his family ever learn the truth, rather than be given mealy-mouthed 'apologies'?

Friday May 29, 2009, 6:01 am
It is sometimes difficult to admit your mistakes and this also goes for this officer.

Friday May 29, 2009, 6:03 am
P.S. So clean your slate, nobody will condemn you then.

Saturday June 13, 2009, 2:01 pm
Thank you Pete for sharing! Thank you Eleanor for forwarding! ~