de Menezes killing: open verdict

[dessiato]

Watching this unfolding on TV here in Portugal it seems the police have literally got away with murder!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7764882.stm

I can't think why they couldn't have the 'unlawful killing' option. From the information that I have it would seem that this would have been the correct decision.

 

[belboid]

some lawyer bloke an Radio4 just now was asked whether this was simply the establishment covering up for themselves. he spluttered 'no, of course not, they couldn't give such a verdict because, mmm, because mm' and couldn't really finish his sentence

 

[dessiato]

From what information I have here, unlawful killing is the most reasonable result.

 

[Barking_Mad]

quelle surprise.

 

[joevsimp]

What reason did the judge give for ordering the jury not to return a verdict of unlawfull killing?

 

[chegrimandi]

What reason did the judge give for ordering the jury not to return a verdict of unlawfull killing?

de menezes was a fare dodger and therefore deserved it.

 

[TopCat]

What reason did the judge give for ordering the jury not to return a verdict of unlawfull killing?

The judge is a cunt.

 

[dessiato]

What reason did the judge give for ordering the jury not to return a verdict of unlawfull killing?

Good question, probably a political decision?

I am, obviously, not an expert, but I would be interested why this instruction was given.

From the information I have it would appear that the jury might have given unlawful killing if it had been available. Perhaps the government wants to be sure that the police cannot be forced into a court to justify their actions, and to defend their policy in this case.

 

[belboid]

What reason did the judge give for ordering the jury not to return a verdict of unlawfull killing?

'insufficient evidence'. Tho he didn't, of course, give any indication of what evidence he would ever have considered sufficient.

 

[TheDave]

Could the jury still have returned a verdict of unlawful killing even though the judge told them they couldn't?

 

[Athos]

Could the jury still have returned a verdict of unlawful killing even though the judge told them they couldn't?

No

 

[TheDave]

On what legal basis/right does a judge have to explicitly deny one of the possible verdicts? Doesn't an open verdict mean their has to be an inquiry or have I just made that up? My apologies, I have a profound lack of legal knowledge/insight.

 

[dessiato]

On what legal basis/right does a judge have to explicitly deny one of the possible verdicts? Doesn't an open verdict mean their has to be an inquiry or have I just made that up? My apologies, I have a profound lack of legal knowledge/insight.

If that's the case it will be interesting to watch the inquiry.

I'll have to find an International Sunday Times this week to see how it's reported. Should be interesting to see how the killing is justified.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What a fucking shambles

How much money has this inquiry cost I wonder? Bearing in mind the verdict was decided in advance, what is the justification for the whole thing? And does this 'verdict' (or glaring lack of same) mean that no criminal charges can be brought against the gunmen or Cressida Cockface or anybody at all who was involved?

 

[dessiato]

According to PT TV there is going to be a report on the case being made public.



Will it tell the whole truth? I doubt it will.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

What reason did the judge give for ordering the jury not to return a verdict of unlawfull killing?

I think the reason was something to do with a cover up that wouldn't work if the jury could give unlawful killing as it's verdict.

 

[TheDave]

Okay as far as I understand, choosing an open verdict over lawful killing essentially means the jury thinks the police were in the wrong to open fire on de Menezes? I still don't understand why they couldn't choose unlawful killing. According to the Guardian there is going to be a judicial review into why unlawful killing was taken off the table.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

According to the Guardian there is going to be a judicial review into why unlawful killing was taken off the table.

How many multi-million £ whitewashes does this need?

 

[TheDave]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-verdict

Despite the criticism of the police, De Menezes's family – who were not in court after last week's protests – accused Wright of "presiding over a complete whitewash".

In a stinging attack on the former high court judge, they said he "failed on every count" during the proceedings. They plan to mount a judicial review over the omission of the unlawful killing verdict.

How many multi-million £ whitewashes does this need?

You and the family seem to be in agreement on this whole affair. Utterly ridiculous. Everyone could see from day one that this was going to be a kangaroo court.

 

[joevsimp]

'insufficient evidence'. Tho he didn't, of course, give any indication of what evidence he would ever have considered sufficient.

would cctv evidence and half a dozen or so eyewitness accounts be sufficient?

 

[Athos]

On what legal basis/right does a judge have to explicitly deny one of the possible verdicts?

Coroner's Act and Coroner's Rules.

Doesn't an open verdict mean their has to be an inquiry...

No.

 

[belboid]

Okay as far as I understand, choosing an open verdict over lawful killing essentially means the jury thinks the police were in the wrong to open fire on de Menezes?

Not within a strict interpretation of the law. All it necessarily means is that they rejected 'lawful killing', but it doesn't blame anyone in particular. I would very strongly suspect that you're right that they thought the policve were wrong to open fire, to say the least, tho.

 

[belboid]

would cctv evidence and half a dozen or so eyewitness accounts be sufficient?

clearly not

 

[SpookyFrank]

Well, due process has evidently failed. The only thing that remains to be done is killing a dozen or so coppers. Maybe that'll make the next trigger-happy cunt think twice before making a 'split second decision'.

 

[TheDave]

Thanks for the replies, still trying to get my head around this whole case. It seems i'm not the only one having problems, it looks like a proper shambolic affair all round.

 

[Athos]

Okay as far as I understand, choosing an open verdict over lawful killing essentially means the jury thinks the police were in the wrong to open fire on de Menezes? I still don't understand why they couldn't choose unlawful killing. According to the Guardian there is going to be a judicial review into why unlawful killing was taken off the table.

No. It means that there is in sufficient evidence to return any of the other available verdicts i.e. in this case, Lawful Killling.

 

[danny la rouge]

Not within a strict interpretation of the law. All it necessarily means is that they rejected 'lawful killing', but it doesn't blame anyone in particular. I would very strongly suspect that you're right that they thought the policve were wrong to open fire, to say the least, tho.

That's right, they had two options: lawful killing or reject that it was lawful killing. They were asked to answer a number of questions, though, including whether they believed that police had shouted a warning. The jury did not believe that they had.

 

[belboid]

the beeb link Menezes Verdict Explained strongly suggests to me the jury wanted to go further than they were allowed to by the coroner.

This ones key, imo:

"The pressure on police after the suicide attacks in July 2005 [contributed to the death]." ANSWER: CANNOT DECIDE

Answering 'Yes' would have let the police off the hook (to an extent) as it would be saying that it was beyond the polices control. By rejecting that option the jury is coming as close as possible to saying that the police should have known better. For that to be the only question where all but one juror couldn't agree is quite astounding.

 

[grubby local]

The lawyer Harriet just said that the jury went back to the coroner and asked to be able to give a fuller response ie their own narrative. He refused.

Gagged. £8M whitewash.

The jury gave the most damning verdict they could have done. They rejected all police version of the events = heads must roll.

gx

 

[MrSki]

Press Release from Inquest:

STATEMENT ON THE VERDICT OF THE INQUEST INTO JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES



Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST said:



“Nothing is more serious in a democracy than the deliberate use of lethal force by the state and it should be subject to the most rigorous and transparent public scrutiny. Despite the coroner’s attempt to undermine and frustrate the vital democratic role of this inquest jury by restricting their options they have returned a damning verdict rejecting the police version of events, the lawfulness of the shooting and the policies and procedures within which they were operating.



Respect for human rights and the rule of law are essential in a free and democratic society. This is critical when faced with the challenge of terrorism. The death of an innocent man and the failure to hold police to account exposes a culture of impunity. It throws into disrepute the current investigatory mechanisms that follow the use of lethal force by the state. This is a worrying trend in the context of the recent attempt by the government to curtail independent investigations with proposals for non jury, secret inquests into some contentious deaths. Proposals to reform the inquest system will be included in the forthcoming Coroners and Justice Bill but will not address the fundamental issues raised by this inquest.”



The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes returned an open verdict.

The coroner also asked the jury to answer a number of key questions.

1. "Did firearms officer C12 shout armed police?" ANSWER: NO

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

3. "Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor?" ANSWER: NO

4. 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." ANSWER: CANNOT DECIDE

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

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

d. "The general difficulty in providing identification of the man under surveillance in the time available." ANSWER: NO

e. "The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion." ANSWER: NO

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

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