Health and safety
The de Menezes verdict
November 1, 2007 20 comments
The Metropolitan Police has been found to have broken the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act on the day in 2005 that they shot electrician Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head with dumdum bullets on a London Tube train.
Certainly Menezes’s own health and safety were thereby rather permanently compromised. (For him, it was definitely a safety event.) But that was not exactly the point of the trial, despite the somewhat confusing emphasis of the first two paragraphs in the BBC report:
London’s Metropolitan police force has been found guilty of endangering the public over the shooting dead of a man officers mistook for a suicide bomber.
The force broke health and safety laws when officers pursued Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes to a Tube station and shot him seven times, a jury found.
In fact, the burden of what the court found the police did wrong was to let Menezes get on a bus, and then a Tube train, in the first place, while the Keystone Cops were miscommunicating and urinating at inappropriate moments. Their letting a person suspected of involvement in terrorism run around on public transport is what was found to have endangered the public safety.
Quite so. If the police had been more efficient and shot de Menezes dead immediately he left his flat that morning, there would have been no grounds for censure at all.
I guess there is a possibility that someone might survive being shot in the head at point blank range once, though I doubt they would go on to purposefully trigger an explosion.
But does the report explain the purpose of bullets numbers 3-7?
I’m just curious.
Oh, and still outraged.
I don’t understand why the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes is described as anything other than murder. They seized him, held him down on the floor and shot him repeatedly in the head. It’s barely relevant that they mistook him for someone else, he was visibly unarmed, under their control and they just murdered him.
From the BBC site from a few days ago:
‘Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead because he acted in an “aggressive and threatening manner” when challenged by police, a court has heard.’
Assuming this is true, unlike, say the claim that he was wearing baggy clothes or jumped the barriers, (claims that the Met are very, very sorry they leaked to the media, as they leak similar details virtually every time someone dies at their hands). It still doesn’t explain why the police shot him seven times in the head after they had restrained him.
‘One of them, codenamed Ivor, said the Brazilian had appeared “agitated”, with his hands “held below his waist and slightly in front of him”, and that he had “advanced to within three or four feet”.’
His hands were below his waist? How unusual for a man to have arms.
Oh, and his hands were “slightly in front of him”? As in, they could see his hands, and the fact he didn’t have anything in them, before they pressed him on the ground and shot him repeatedly in the head.
Where could de Menezes have put his hands to reassure them? Not behind him presumably, not in his pockets, not in front, not at the sides and if he raised them that would probably be taken as a sign of aggression.
‘Ivor was “concerned that his hands may come together”, said Mr Thwaites, and acted “instinctively” to pin his arms to his sides.’
So he pinned his arms against his sides. And it was necessary to follow this up with seven bullets in the head… why? In case he detonated a remarkably small and well-concealed bomb with his nose? His teeth?
‘There was a fear he might be “putting two wires together… towards a belt, towards a battery, towards a detonator, who knows?”‘
And none of the three men who had restrained him, or the several other surveillance officers on the carriage could check, apparently.
Incidentally, the firearms officers didn’t know that ‘Ivor’ was a policeman, so they dragged him out at gunpoint. He was lucky he didn’t put his hands in front of him in an agitated fashion, I guess.
…and they followed him from his flat, and weren’t able to keep up with him, and in earlier iterations of the story weren’t even sure if the man they shot was the same one they’d been following at the time they shot him, and we still don’t know if he jumped the barrier or not. I think there’s still quite a reasonable case to be made that there were two men wearing coats out that day, one of them a fast walker, perhaps in a hurry to get to a meeting, the other simply walking in the tube station.
I see armed police in the US bullying civilians all the time, and every now and then I read about some hapless person (almost always male, usually black) being arbitrarily gunned down. Remind me why we want all these men with guns on the street?
Can you clarify – is that it? Or is this merely the first of several verdicts we’re awaiting? The first time I read this, I just thought it was stage one in a long process: establishing ground rules for further charges, but now, re-reading it, I see no such implication.
Is this an example of Sir Humphrey’s standard method for dealing with scandals: set up an enquiry, let months or yeas go by, and then, when the press has lost interest, issue a lukewarm statement?
Yes, that’s it. “Mistakes have been made but lessons have been learnt” apparently. What these lessons are and who has learnt them remains a mystery. The phrase remains in the passive voice, a typical piece of Unspeak.
If they’re not allowed to roam the streets, they’ll follow you home.
I love this bit that Alex cited:
But how was Ivor (“the Engine”) to know that the explosives belt that Menezes was not wearing under the bulky jacket that he was also, er, not wearing, was not rigged to go off when Menezes put his hands to his sides?
Yes, I checked this too. If I don’t do anything in particular with my arms, my hands hang below my waist and slightly in front of me. I am going to be quite nervous next time I get on the Tube.
they’ll follow you home.
Then hang around outside ineffectively, pee in your bushes, and shoot you on the tube?
This is the first time I’ve really understood it – we’re in a war.
Richard, you said, “The first time I read this, I just thought it was stage one in a long process: establishing ground rules for further charges, but now, re-reading it, I see no such implication.”
The IPCC’s FAQ might be worth a read (31Kb PDF).
The Stockwell One report is to be published shortly (suitably redacted, of course), then there will be an inquest in 2008, which may determine there was an unlawful killing – if the Coroner allows the jury to reach that verdict, of course.
You also said, “I don’t understand why the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes is described as anything other than murder. They seized him, held him down on the floor and shot him repeatedly in the head.”
Well, that isn’t murder – not in the legal sense, anyway.
You also said, “I don’t understand why the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes is described as anything other than murder. They seized him, held him down on the floor and shot him repeatedly in the head.”
Well, that isn’t murder – not in the legal sense, anyway.
It was me who said that actually. I’m still genuinely puzzled – why isn’t it murder, even in the legal sense? I’m sure if I did that I would be convicted of murder.
Is it possible for the police to commit murder in the legal sense?
It’s certainly possible for the police to commit murder, but if they can come up with some sort of excuse (“I thought he had a bomb” or “I thought he was reaching into the Hello Kitty bag for a gun”) and don’t stupidly brag about the killing, they will never be prosecuted.
This is in a sense a consequence of fearmongering about the mythical powers of terrorists and their supertech weapons. It was talk of suitcase nukes that helped manufacture partial consent to the war on Iraq, and now we have dumb plods spooked by fantasies of bombers with invisible bombs that they activate by clapping their hands. The politicians who fostered this febrile and fantastical atmosphere should be prosecuted for endangering public health and safety too.
And yes, I too consider it murder. The guy was completely subdued with his arms pinned and offering no resistance. There was no need to shoot him in the head. Seven times.
Would it be wicked to hope that the next victim turns out to be a close relative of someone powerful?
“Would it be wicked to hope that the next victim turns out to be a close relative of someone powerful?”
Or to imagine that they would still try and explain it away and rally behind the police?
Apologies for my misattribution.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another where the intent is to cause death (or serious injury where death is virtually certain to result). Some homicides are lawful – in this case, the firearms officers would argue self-defence or the defence of others.
In order to have the firearms officers convicted of murder, the prosecution must be able to persuade a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the officers did not have an honest belief that lethal force was necessary.
Now, I don’t want to be dismissive of that issue, it is certainly important, but it’s not going to progress any further until after the inquest and the publication of Stockwell One. I think there is at least one other important issue that must be addressed, and it can be addressed without accusing anyone of criminal offences, but rather in an ‘intellectual’ way.
So, let’s accept for the sake of argument they formed this honest belief. We still have not been told how it was formed (perhaps Stockwell One will tell us). This of course would normally be tested in a murder trial.
This seems to be vital to me because we have been told that normal behaviour, such as getting off and on the same bus, using a mobile phone (calling and texting), manifesting nervousness, agitation, anxiety, and so on, after being manhandled by strangers and seeing men with guns, contributed to the death of de Menezes.
As the defence said, “He was shot because, when he was challenged by police [well, opinions differ about that, but let’s go with it for now – ukliberty], he did not comply with them but reacted precisely as they had been briefed a suicide bomber might react at the point of detonating his bomb.”
But would an innocent person be likely to react in that way?
This seems vital to the whole debate (has there been one?) regarding the ‘shoot-to-incapacitate’ (Unspeak?) policy, because if innocent people react in the same way, more innocent people will be killed.
Yet I have not seen this question asked by any in the mainstream media, or by any politicians, or other ‘important’ people, and believe me I have been looking.
Thanks for clarifying, Ukliberty.
You’re quite right about the lack of media focus on this issue (though the press are going after Sir Ian Blair, I suspect with different gripes in mind).
And we already agree that the police description of De Menezes’ behaviour and their apparent doctrine of how suicide bombers behave when faced with arrest contain potentially massive absurdities.
But I’m not sure that is actually the main issue.
I suspect that the police believed that De Menezes was who they claimed they thought he was. My question is, why did they open fire at point blank range into his head after restraining him?
If the police had killed De Menezes from a distance, it would be harder to accuse them of murder. They could argue that they believed he was an imminent threat due to a ghastly mistake, and at a distance they could not tell otherwise.
But the fact that they shot De Menezes when he was – according to police testimony – restrained by three people, with his arms pinned to his sides, and when they were in a position to ascertain reasonably if he had a suicide vest or belt on, changes that.
(As an aside, if they thought he was an immediate threat to their lives, why did three men, two of them armed, rush towards him?)
Perhaps my understanding of this is inaccurate. But as I understand it at the moment, there was no justification for firing at the time they did, regardless of who they believed De Menezes was.
If De Menezes had in fact been a Bin Ladenist engaged in a criminal conspiracy, there still would have been no case for firing at the moment they did.
The feeble defence offered by the police in court as reported in the press (in fairness, I have not read transcripts) certainly makes me wonder why they cannot offer anything more convincing.
My feeling is that the police have benefitted so far from a cultural unwillingness in both the mainstream media and the judiciary to condemn or even properly acknowledge state violence.
You’re right, certainly the main issue is his death.
It’s conceivable the firearms officers genuinely thought he was Osman (the suspect they were really after) and so they shot him, thinking they were doing us a favour. That of course would have been murder. It doesn’t matter if the target is a terrorist or not – what matters is the honest belief that lethal force was necessary.
But it’s also conceivable that they were given an inflammatory and inaccurate briefing, and this contributed to their ‘honest belief’. This was among the nineteen allegations. James Ashley’s death is another example.
Who knows, maybe they were told he had thought-controlled explosives? (ok, that may be taking it a bit far, but you get the point).
Going on the information already in the public domain, I think you’d be hard pushed to persuade a jury that de Menezes was murdered.
The fact remains that we cannot test the legality of the killing unless there is a trial or inquest. As things stand at the time of writing, there won’t be murder charges. The inquest is to continue early next year – nearly three years after the shooting. The Stockwell One report may help – this will be published in the next couple of days, suitably redacted of course. The family are going to pursue a private prosecution – I don’t know the specifics. But that may help (or it may be taken over by the DPP and dropped).
I think there is a general reluctance to prosecute firearms officers and police officers. I think you’re right about the media, too – only the ‘Left’-leaning papers seem to address state violence in a relatively substantial way. But I don’t think we should condemn all of it – certainly some of it is suspect, and we really need to have this addressed, but some of it is justifiable.
With regard to your aside, perhaps the firearms officers moved closer because of a fear they might hit someone else – they are after all “required to achieve 70% accuracy” (a 30% inaccuracy). Presumably this is inversely proportional to the distance from the target?
Another controversial case has made it into the news – the shooting of Azelle Rodney.
(As an aside, I don’t understand why the shooters of Stephen Waldorf weren’t convicted of attempted murder).
ukliberty:
I haven’t read all the trial transcripts. Did it ever come out exactly what this “challenge” consisted in, exactly what words if any were used, and what would have counted as compliance? Or was it more like “Oi!” [gunshots]? (Even if a verbal challenge was issued, Alex’s point about shooting someone you have already restrained is strong.)
Yes, that’s a very important point. (I discuss “shoot-to-kill-in-order-to-protect”, handily shortened to “shoot-to-protect”, in Unspeak chapter 4).
I haven’t read the trial transcripts either (as an aside, it seems relatively difficult to get hold of such as those, unlike court judgements, which makes it harder to see if justice is done). My opinions are based on articles in the mainstream media and official documents in the public domain.
The two firearms officers who shot de Menezes (presumably after challenging him) were not called to give evidence. Nor did we hear from any of the other people on the Tube. As far as I know, there was no discussion in the H&S trial of what form the challenge took, except for a vague reference in the nineteen allegations:
But perhaps the media simply didn’t report on that aspect of the trial.
At the time of the shooting, one or two witnesses reported what they heard to the media, along the lines of, “Police! Get down, get down!”
As I understand it, the IPCC’s Stockwell One report (to be published this week) will report on what all the witnesses experienced.
But the IPCC’s Stockwell Two report says,
When this report was released, the Telegraph printed a quote from IPCC Commissioner Naseem Malik:
I find it fascinating that, if this is the case, the defence is allowed to argue that he was challenged and given a choice to comply or not.
Now, if you Google “menezes challenged”, you will get the impression from the first page of results (and half the second page) that he refused to obey instructions and was aggressive and threatening. The police press office and the media did their jobs very well indeed.
There seems to be some irony here, in that they have told us at other times that they wouldn’t challenge a suicide bomber – and I don’t understand why they would. After all, they keep telling us how dangerous such people are, and they could explode any time, and there mustn’t be any delay in decision-making, and so on. So what would be the point? It certainly isn’t required by law.
As another aside, it seems to me equally believable to (if not more so than) the defence’s case is that de Menezes, on seeing the firearms officers run on to the train, thought he was being manhandled by a suicide bomber (surveillance officer Ivor, who would have appeared to be a violent stranger with a rucksack), and moved toward the police for protection. The last thing to go through his mind – apart from the bullets, of course – was, “why the hell are they shooting me?”
Of course, unlike with Stephen Waldorf, who miraculously survived his attempted killing, we will sadly never hear Jean Charles de Menezes’ side of the story.
Sorry, forgot to add that the Stockwell Two report tells us the person who made up the story that de Menezes was challenged and those people who didn’t correct it:
Thank you: that’s fascinating. So if I understand correctly, the origin of the “challenge” story appears to be a press officer’s assumption that standard procedure was followed.
[…] A comment I left elsewhere on an unanswered question from the H&S trial November 5th, 2007 [at Unspeak] […]
[…] So much has already been written on the subject of the unfortunate electrician. Much of it has focused on the incompetence that many would like to put down to the tense post-7/7 atmosphere, and it is that for incompetence that the Met were finally charged: not with murder, but with a breach of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. As Steven Poole writes: […]