Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest

Statement on Today's Release of the Coroner's Rule 43 Report

2009-03-04T11:59:00.014Z

The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign and the family's lawyers, Birnberg Peirce, issued the following statement on the Coroner’s Rule 43 recommendations and response from the Metropolitan Police:

"At the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the legal team acting for the family raised a range of concerns about the police operation at every level, including in particular the lack of clarity and control in the command structure, the confusion over the role of the Designated Senior Officer, the lack of clarity over identification, the failure of communication between the different teams (control room, surveillance and firearms) and the inherent weakness in the MPS strategy to deal with failed suicide bombers. It was the family’s position that the combination of these serious failings contributed directly to the death of Jean Charles and the jury at the inquest, insofar as they were permitted to, shared this view in their verdict.

The family regret that none of the officers giving evidence at the inquest, and in particular those in command of the operation, were prepared to accept responsibility for the failings, instead maintaining they had done nothing wrong. They note that the Rule 43 report of the coroner identifies many of the failings that the family’s legal team sought to expose and welcomes the significant recommendations for improved practice many of which the Metropolitan Police have accepted, showing in their response a willingness to implement changes. They question why, if the raft of weaknesses identified are now accepted, it remains the case that no senior officer has accepted personal responsibility for such catastrophic failures or has been held to account. Instead many of the key officers have been promoted. When no-one is held to account, the family fear that any such changes will be cosmetic, with no stick to ensure a real commitment to reform.

One key area that the Rule 43 report and MPS response fails to tackle adequately goes to the heart of the ‘shoot to kill’ debate. If an armed officer has no intelligence or other information that tells him that the suspect has the means to detonate a bomb, he must issue a challenge or we risk repeat killings by the police.

A proper public debate about the ‘shoot-to kill’ policy is now long overdue. As Nick Hardwick, the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said after the inquest in December 2008, “The inquest and health and safety trial have necessarily focused on the specific events of 22 July 2005. They have not examined the broader issue of how the police should respond to the threat of suicide terrorism. I call again for this to have much broader debate and scrutiny by the public and their representatives.”

The family remain determined that lessons should be learnt and officers held to account. To this end they welcome the Director of Public Prosecutions invitation to meet with him later this month, and the IPCC’s willingness to consider representations from the family in respect of disciplinary decisions. They will continue to push for parliamentary accountability. It is now time for that debate to begin without delay. Jean's family in London has therefore written to Keith Vaz MP, the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, asking for a meeting to discuss what role his committee can have in ensuring this important public discussion starts as soon as possible."

ENDS

For press enquiries contact the Justice4Jean campaign on 07709 656 251

Documents

Coroner's Rule 43 Report [PDF, 5.8Mb] - warning, large file!
Metropolitan Police Response [PDF, 180K]
Metropolitan Police Authority Response [PDF, 35K]
MPA Stockwell Scrutiny Report [PDF, 304K]

Menezes Family Condemn CPS Decision Not to Prosecute

2009-02-13T14:28:00.004Z

Vivian Figuierdo

"Today's decision is deeply upsetting to my family. The CPS have not met with us or our lawyers about this, we have been totally shut out of the process again. We are all in shock and simply cannot understand how the deliberate killing of an innocent man and an attempt by the Metropolitan police to cover it up does not result in a criminal offence. We condemn the CPS decision and reject the logic of their argument.

The inquest put the truth out there for all the public to see, but the authorities want us to forget the truth to stop us getting justice. But we will never forget.

After almost four years of tireless campaigning by my family and a struggle which has disrupted all of our lives in unimaginable ways, it is clear to us that the state will continue to block any of our attempts to achieve justice through the legal system. We have therefore decided not to continue with our legal challenges. We now turn our efforts to parliament. Justice for Jean will be done one day and we are determined to follow any route to get it"

A spokesperson for the Justice 4 Jean Campaign said

"The decision by the Crown Prosecution Service today marks another low point in appalling way the British legal system has dealt with the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. Last year, the jury at the inquest found that Jean was not lawfully killed; rejected the police's versions of events and found that the police lied. How can the public have faith in the police service if they know officers can literally get away with murder? The Menezes family, their lawyers and supporters now call on parliamentarians to act on repairing the failing legislative framework around deaths in custody and police accountability and we will be stepping up their campaign in this area.

Almost exactly 10 years from the publication of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry today's decision makes it clear that there has been no progress in achieving any sense of a decent system of police accountability in the UK and while the shoot to kill policy remains in place, another family could go through the same horrendous ordeal as the Menezes family "

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the Menezes family said

We are disappointed that the CPS have communicated their decision to the media before providing the family with any warning that a decision was about to be made or an opportunity to consider the reasoning for what will undoubtedly be considered a disappointing response. By coincidence, the family had just prepared detailed representations to the CPS of reasons why
a prosecution of certain officers should be considered and we have requested a meeting with the DPP.

After careful consideration regarding the proposed judicial review challenge to the coroner's decision not to return an unlawful killing verdict, the family have decided not to proceed with this challenge for a number of reasons including the following:

whilst we maintain that the ruling of the coroner in respect of unlawful killing was wrong, we are acutely aware of the very significant cost to the public purse of pursuing judicial review proceedings – it islikely that in addition to the legal costs to the family and the coroner, the five other interested persons at the inquest will also wish to be legally represented and probably all will require public funding; the proceedings are likely to be protracted and appealed to a higher court by the losing party
if we were to succeed in our judicial review challenge, the only remedy for the family would be for the court to order a fresh inquest and we cannot see any great benefit in re-hearing all the evidence to enable a different jury to come to a verdict, particularly bearing in mind the very high cost of holding such an inquest, such costs being borne by the residents of Southwark, Lambeth, Greenwich and Lewisham.
we believe that in the light of the answers given by the jury, they may well have returned an unlawful killing verdict if they had been permitted to.
we consider that in the light of the jury's verdict and the significant further evidence that emerged during the course of the inquest, that there is ample ground for the DPP to reconsider the question as to whether any officers should be prosecuted.
we also believe there are good grounds for the IPCC to reconsider its decision in relation to potential disciplinary proceedings against certain officers and will be making further representations to them.

The letter from Stephen O’Doherty of the Crown Prosecution Service can be downloaded here [PDF, 67K]

Menezes family's response to the Jury's verdict

2008-12-13T13:15:00.005Z

Menezes family response to the Jury’s verdict 12/12/08

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 their verdict today that the jury could have gone further had they not been gagged by the coroner. We thank the jury for their efforts in going as far as they could within the restrictions placed on them. They delivered the best result they could have done. Especially by stating that the police lied about warnings and that Jean's behavior was completely innocent and should not have aroused suspicions.

We maintain that Jean Charles de Menezes was unlawfully killed.

During the inquest we heard weeks of damning evidence about the police’s actions. We were therefore devastated to find out that the jury had been gagged by the Coroner at the end of the inquest. It is a travesty of justice that after three months, 100 witnesses and a cost of £3 million pounds, the jury were restricted.

For 3 ½ years we have had one simple request, that all the evidence be put in front of the jury and for them to be allowed to decide. The questions left for the jury were limited in scope and were biased in the way they were written. As the inquest progressed it became more and more clear to us that the Coroner was clearly on the side of the police. That is why with deep regret and frustration we had to instruct our lawyers to leave the process.

Jean Charles de Menezes was my cousin, he was my friend, he was someone I loved. But he could have been your cousin, your friend, someone you loved. He could have been anyone of us. Our campaign for justice has always been not only for Jean, but so that no other family suffers like we have. But unless there is justice and police officers are held accountable, a tragic death like Jean’s could easily be repeated.

We now be contacting the Home Secretary to voice our concerns about not only the inquest, but all the failures from the state bodies investigating this case. From the IPCC investigations, the CPS decision not to prosecute and the MPA’s decision not to discipline the officers involved.

We also hope to meet the Chair of the MPA, Boris Johnson, to discuss what action he will take against the police officers based on the evidence that came out of the inquest. We found it disgraceful that every officer got up in court and told us that nothing had gone wrong and they would do the same thing again.

We appeal to members of parliament and ask that the Home Affairs Select Committee to undertake an inquiry into Jean’s death and the failings in the systems for accountability. Parliament needs to understand that investigations without justice are meaningless.

When Jean was killed I made a promise to him that we would fight for justice no matter how long it took and what was thrown in our way. I repeat that promise to him today. Our campaign continues in the loving memory of our innocent cousin. We will be here until there is Justice4Jean.

We would like to thank the British public for all their support.

Patricia da Silva Armani
Cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes

J4J's Post Inquest Briefing and Legal Submissions on Verdicts

2008-12-13T13:00:00.000Z

The campaign's post-inquest briefing is now available to download [PDF, 39K]

The family's legal submission to the Coroner on verdicts is also available here [PDF, 281K]

Other legal submissions on verdicts

Command Team - includes DAC Cressida Dick here [PDF, 423K]
Metropolitan Police Service here [PDF, 599K]
Firearms officers - here [PDF, 132K]
Independent Police Complaints Commission - here [PDF, 47K]
Surveillance team - part 1 [PDF, 65K] and part 2 [PDF, 69K]

Former London Mayor praises senior officer in charge of failed police operation as potential future Met Commissioner

2008-12-13T09:05:00.006Z

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who has staunchly defended both outgoing Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and the officers involved in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, has praised the senior officer who led the operation that resulted in Jean's death.

Livingstone told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning that he acknowledged the Met police deserved criticism for the errors they made but said these were the result of the "unbelievable" pressure they were under - a factor that the inquest jury were unable to agree upon.

The former Mayor also lavishly praised Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick as the "most talented" officer he worked with, an officer with "Commissioner potential". DAC Dick was the senior officer in charge of the police operation on 22 July 2005, an operation that was the inquest jury believed was a surveillance failure and a communications disaster, with numerous opportunities to make decisions that could have prevented Jean's death.

Cressida Dick's twenty five serious and catastrophic failures

The interview with Livingstone was followed by the family's lawyer Gareth Peirce, who pointed out that the family had highlighted "25 serious and catastrophic failures on the part of Cressida Dick alone." She added that "the handling of the events that led up to the fatal shooting was disastrous, and it was disastrous on the part of the senior officers, who had a public duty and were paid to exercise that duty of care."

You can listen to both interviews online here or download as an MP3 (warning - 6Mb file. Right-click to save). Gareth Peirce's interview starts at 7 minutes.

Summary of Saturday's Press Coverage

2008-12-13T08:34:00.006Z

Independent: Menezes: Did the police lie?

Daily Telegraph: Police evidence called into question by inquest jury

The Times: Jean Charles de Menezes jury condemns police

Daily Mail: De Menezes jury damns police 'cover-up'

The Sun: De Menezes: Jury Lashes Police

The Guardian: Police who shot De Menezes will return to frontline duty

The Financial Times: De Menezes jury rejects police account

The Daily Mirror: Prosecute lying cops, demand Jean Charles de Menezes lawyers

Daily Express: Jury backs de Menezes family: It's a 'whitewash'

Belfast Telegraph: Jury returns open verdict as they reject police de Menezes claim

The Scotsman: Dead man walking: the last moments of de Menezes' life

The Herald: Menezes jury verdict on police: we don’t believe you

Coverage from this evening

2008-12-12T23:40:00.001Z

Channel 4 News coverage

Channel 4 interview with family solicitor Harriet Wistrich

ITN News - interview with Jean's mother Maria

Press statement from the family

2008-12-12T14:01:00.004Z

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

The press conference, from Channel 4 News

The Menezes family - Q&A

2008-12-12T13:59:00.000Z

Is the family pleased with the verdict? Do they feel justice has been done?

The decision today will not bring our cousin Jean back.

However, it goes at least some way to recognising the failings that led to his death. We thank the jury for the considerable time they contributed to this inquest and their careful review of all the evidence within the boundaries given to them.

Agencies and institutions involved in all aspects of this case must now demonstrate their own accountability and make fundamental changes to their practices and procedures.

In their conclusions, the jury have delivered a strong critique of the police and its failings. They have said that they do not believe that the police gave a warning before shots were fired, or that Jean advanced towards firearms officers in the tube train. The family appreciate this conclusion.

We have come a little closer to the truth during the course of the inquest. Nevertheless, the gagging of the options available to the jury constitutes a abject failure of the role of the inquest.

What will the family do now?

The family has consistently struggled for justice, which has not yet been delivered. We will continue to pursue this aim.

The next stage is a judicial review of the Coroner’s decision not to allow an unlawful killing verdict. We will also be examining all other legal avenues because we feel that the Coroner has ensured that the inquest failed in its fundamental role to properly examine why our cousin Jean was killed.

As the legal situation stands today, another innocent member of the public could be shot and another family could go through the same ordeal as us.

Will the family be asking for compensation?

The family has not pursued this as a priority. Our central concern has always been to find out the truth about Jean's death.

When we buried Jean in 2005,we made a promise to him that we would make sure that justice was done. Jean was a great believer in justice, one of the things he most loved about living in Britain was respect for the rule of law and that nobody was above the law. We owe it to his memory to make sure that nobody else suffers the way that he did.

In light of the verdict, we would nevertheless hope that any issues around compensation to be settled in a dignified manner, without obstruction or delay.

What is your message to Sir Ian Blair?

Today’s verdict confirms that Sir Ian Blair has repeatedly evaded any responsibility for the killing of an innocent man, by misleading the public in the aftermath of the shooting so that no-one in his police force is held to account over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

However, having misrepresented the shooting as simply a ‘tragic mistake’ rather than the result of terrible policy and procedural failures, it is clear that Jean's death will always be Sir Ian's legacy, the judgement on his time as Commissioner that he will never escape.

Has the family any message to the jury?

We consider that the jury were given unacceptable restraints upon the verdict they could deliver and feel that, within the choices available to them, they tried their best to deliver a fair verdict. We thank them for their handling of this difficult task.

We feel that in light of the evidence heard, a free decision by the jury would have at least have left a possibility of a verdict of unlawful killing.

It is disappointing that the Coroner made clear attempts to exclude the public, media and the family's campaign from the inquest.

The family would also like to express their appreciation for the many messages of support from the British public during this difficult time.

The family staged a protest in court. Do they stand by their actions? Do they feel these actions made a difference?

The family stands by our actions because we feel that we were left with no choice. We wanted the jury to know that they could have the freedom to make their decision, despite the limitations placed upon them.

Do you think Cressida Dick should resign?

The family should not have to carry the responsibility of this decision. Public bodies have a responsibility to hold her accountable and they have failed to do so.

In light of DAC Dick’s direct involvement as the designated senior officer of a disastrously handled operation that led to the shooting of an innocent man, her promotion in the aftermath of the shooting was considered by us to be a deliberate slap in the face for our family and our view on this remains unchanged.

We once again call on the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Authority to review the inquest evidence and to see what appropriate action needs to be taken to hold public servants to account.

Why did you ask your legal team to withdraw from the inquest?

The family felt that they were left with no other option. We felt the coroner’s decision to restrict the jury’s decision-making completely undermined their role to freely return whatever verdict they felt was correct based on the evidence. We could no longer participate in a process which was so clearly a whitewash.

Jury's response to the Coroner's questionnaire

2008-12-12T13:56:00.006Z

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 Stockwel 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.

Menezes Family Press Conference to Respond to Inquest Verdict

2008-12-12T13:07:00.003Z

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes will be holding a press conference to respond to the verdict at the inquest around 2pm. This will take place at:

Oval House Theatre
52-54 Kennington Oval
London SE11 5SW

Pre-registration for this event is not necessary.

Due to high call demand, if you have interview requests please TEXT them to 07931337890 specifying any requests i.e. live, pre-record, venue, time etc in your message. Bear with us if it takes some time to get back to you but be assured that we will endeavor to meet as many requests as we can.

For all other inquiries please contact the Justice 4 Jean campaign on 07944
069 956 or 07931337890

Messages of Support

2008-12-11T14:00:00.001Z

To the family of Jean Charles de Menezes

Like so many people in this country, my initial reaction when I heard of the death of Jean Charles was one of absolute horror that an innocent man could meet such a barbaric end at the hands of those we have charged with protecting us. In that moment, in my opinion, whatever merit there might have been in fighting the 'war on terror' was lost.

Three and half years later and I'm still just as appalled at what happened that day, and feel just as much sympathy for you, the loving members of his family, as I did then.

I have read today that the coroner at the inquest into Jean's death has instructed the jury that they cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing. Perhaps I don't know enough about either the case or the intricacies of the law, but to me that seems an outrage. The British people owe a debt to your family, as well as to their own ideals of freedom and decency, which I feel we can't do enough to repay.

Even though our system of justice seems to have failed you, I feel certain that there are millions of ordinary Britons who are filled with compassion for you and for Jean every time they hear his name.

God bless you.

JB
____________________

I wholeheartedly support your desire to have the jury make up their own minds. I was very disappointed by the coroner's directions to the jury.

With best wishes,

T
____________________

I write to express my solidarity with all of you and my heartfelt admiration for your principled fight for justice. The dignity and firmness of purpose with which you have conducted yourselves stands in stark contrast with the shocking ruling of the Coroner, the gross misconduct of senior police officers and the callous murderousness of those whom they failed to control or train to the standards required by international human rights law.

There is nothing conceivably 'lawful' about Jean Charles's killing and, now the jury has all the facts, there is nothing 'open' about the verdict as far as those of us who care about liberty and justice are concerned.

RJH
____________________

Dear de Menezes family and friends,

For what it is worth, you all have my utmost sympathies. My heart feels for you all. It truly seems that mistakes were made and the killing of your beloved Jean Charles was a moral crime, even if it is not recognised under UK law as a legal crime. It certainly should be and I will complain.

Let it be comfort to you all to know that many thousands, hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people - caring, wonderful fellow humans, the salt of the earth know the truth and this can never be destroyed.

You have done so much in your campaign and I bet if Jean Charles can see you he would surely be so proud, so in awe at the love and compassion you have all shown. I say continue to be strong for him and accept the love and support that comes your way as the purest justice the world can offer.

With love,

RA
____________________

Hi

I just want you to know that I am another person out in the big cold world that aches for what you have had to go through. The day Jean Charles was unjustly taken I cried. I have followed much of your efforts to get heard, and each time i read or hear another set back i feel so darned angry that these immoral, heartless so called people of justice can be so evil, cold and disconnected. I am shaking with frustration right now.

I dont live near london but i wish i did right now so i could actively DO something.
I am so ashamed to be british, I really am. This whole case has been so unnecessarily spiked and why? Because they dont want to admit fault? Because they dont want to change their policy? I dont know what the reason is but its just not good enough.

You sound like a truly wonderful family whom i totally admire for your love, courage, determination and unity, Jean Charles is sure smiling down on you all.
I hope somehow you get some peace in your hearts soon and some kind of miracle will happen to get the real justice you all so deserve.

Hugs & Prayers

DW
Gloucester

Sir Ian Blair used 'cash for honours scandal to survive de Menezes affair'

2008-12-11T13:59:00.001Z

From the Daily Telegraph

Former Metropolitan police chief Sir Ian Blair was a "cheerleader" for the Labour government who used the cash for honours scandal to secure his position during the de Menezes affair, according Britain's former top-ranking Asian officer.

Tarique Ghaffur, who retired from the force last month after reaching an out-of-court settlement in a bitter racism row, claims his former boss used the inquiry into donations and peerages to gain "leverage" over the Home Office.

He also accused Sir Ian, who also retired last month with a payout worth at least £300,000 after being forced to resign by London mayor Boris Johnson, of "meddling with the Met".

He also claimed that Sir Ian was "making us concentrate on internal bureaucracy rather than focus all our attention on the high terror threat".

Mr Ghaffur, 53, alleges he was sidelined by the former Commissioner long before the racism row that divided the force and threatened to end in an explosive tribunal until is was settled with a £300,000 payout.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he claimed Sir Ian excluded him from the cash for honours inquiry into donations to the Labour Party by individuals subsequently awarded peerages.

He said this was done in favour of higher profile officers so that he could gain "leverage over the Home Office" during the investigation into the shooting of of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes.

"He needed its ongoing support as he dealt with the aftermath of the de Menezes affair and, with cash for honours hanging over the Government for a year or more, nobody in Whitehall would want to antagonise him," said Mr Ghaffur.

"Such behaviour was indicative of just how far sir Ian had blurred the boundaries between politics and policing."

He added said Sir Ian had been a strong support of the government over controversial issues such as ID cards and 42 days' detention.

"Tony Blair's Government made ID cards a key issue and shamefully Sir Ian voiced his support for the initiative during a general election campaign," he said. "I was shocked. Of course the Met should be politically accountable but I did not believe it should be politically driven. It seemed to me he was acting as a cheerleader for the Home Office when safety and security has always been, and should still be, a neutral agenda.

"He was a vociferous supporter of [holding terror suspects for up to 42 days] even though operationally it was pointless. Existing laws gave police sufficient time to question suspects and then charge or release them. Quite apart from which if you hold someone for 42 days and then release them you create the wrong kind of hero."

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said it would not comment on the accusations which were Mr Ghaffur's "personal view".

Mr Ghaffur was suspended in September after staging a press conference to accuse the leadership of the Met of undermining him in his role of co-ordination the security for the London Olympics in 2012.

Sir Ian Blair could not be reached for comment.

JURY STILL OUT

2008-12-09T12:38:00.006Z

We are currently still waiting for the Jury to return with their verdict. They have been out since approximately 3pm on Thursday 4th December.

They have now been directed by the Coroner that they can return a verdict with a majority as opposed to a unanimous verdict. This would need 9 out of 11 jurors to agree on each point of the inquisition.

J4J Campaign

STATEMENT FROM MENEZES FAMILY AFTER INQUEST WALKOUT

2008-12-05T10:37:00.002Z

The following statement was made by Vivien Figuerdo, outside of the Oval yesterday, immediately after the family's protest and walk out:

"Today the family both here and in Brazil instructed our lawyers to withdraw from the inquest proceedings. We do this with deep regret and frustration but we feel we have been left with no alternative.

For three and a half years we have had one simple request, that all the evidence be put in front of the jury and for them to be allowed to decide.

We have faced a system which has repeatedly blocked, silenced and stopped all the avenues we have tried in order to get justice. And now we face the situation that after three months, 100 witnesses and a cost of £3 million pounds, the jury is being restricted from considering all the options. We have full confidence in the jury to return a verdict that will deliver justice for Jean. The jury have the legal right to return any verdict they want to and we hope that these 11 ordinary members of the public will do the right thing.

Jean loved living in Britain. One of the reasons he would tell me why liked this country was because it was the home of justice and fairness. We would like to thank the British public for all their support, especially over the last few days.

We do not want any other family to go through what we have gone through. Unless there is justice, the tragic death of Jean could so easily be repeated. Our campaign for justice continues and we hope the jury will do the right thing."

De Menezes family stages protest against coroner's direction on verdict

2008-12-04T15:04:00.007Z

From The Times

Relatives of Jean Charles de Menezes have staged a dramatic courtroom protest during the closing stages of the inquest into his death.

Five members of the de Menezes family unzipped their coats to reveal t-shirts with the slogans "Your Legal Right to Decide" and "Unlawful Killing Verdict" in full view of the jury.

The demonstration, at the special court sitting at the Oval Cricket Ground, was a protest against the decision by Sir Michael Wright, QC, the coroner, to refuse to allow the jury to consider a verdict of unlawful killing in the case.

The incident occurred as Sir Michael began the final hour of his summing up speech at the end of the 11 week inquest which has been held at an estimated cost of £3 million.

Mr de Menezes, 27, a Brazilian electrician, was shot seven times in the head by armed police who mistook him for a suicide bomber on July 22 2005.

Sir Michael opened proceedings by telling the 11 jurors that the de Menezes family's legal team, headed by Michael Mansfield QC, would no longer be attending the hearings.

"The first thing you will notice is that Mr Mansfield, Miss [Henrietta] Hill and their instructing solicitors are no longer in their places," the coroner said. "The evidence and legal submissions are now all over and we have had their assistance throughout these very important stages.

"I understand that from this point they will no longer be here. There is absolutely no difficulty about that. No disrespect is meant by it to anyone."

At that point the five family members, who were sitting at the back of the court, stood up and removed their coats. They stood silently, revealing white T-shirts with large black lettering, for a few moments as startled court staff watched uncertainly.

The relatives then walked from their seats towards the jury box. Court ushers and security guards hurried forward, intercepted them and ushered the group out of the courtroom through a side door.

The coroner ruled earlier this week that the jurors could consider only two verdicts - lawful killing or an open verdict. He has also given the jury a questionnaire listing a number of factors and asking whether they had any influence over the killing.

The hearing is continuing and the jury is expected to retire this afternoon.

See also:

BBC News - Menezes family's inquest protest
Telepgraph - Family protest as jury sent out to consider verdict
ITV News - Protest as Menezes inquest retires
Daily Mail - De Menezes family stage t-shirt protest as inquest jury retires
This is London - De Menezes family storm out of inquest

Menezes family legal team withdraws

2008-12-04T15:03:00.000Z

From the Press Association

The legal team of the family of Jean Charles de Menezes has withdrawn from the inquest into the Brazilian's death as the jury retired to consider its verdict.

Michael Mansfield QC, the barrister representing the Menezes family, and his junior, Henrietta Hill, were absent from court when the jury returned to hear the coroner complete his summing up.

In Mr Mansfield's absence, the cousins of Mr de Menezes stood up during proceedings unveiling a T-shirt displaying the message: "Your legal right to decide - unlawful killing verdict."

The coroner has already directed the jury to rule out a verdict of unlawful killing. The 11 jurors have now retired to consider their verdict.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by police marksmen at Stockwell Tube station in south London on July 22 2005 after being mistaken for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

The coroner's ruling out of unlawful killing leaves the jury with a straight choice between lawful killing or an open verdict.

He told the jurors to cast aside "any emotion" over the innocent Brazilian's shooting after hearing more than seven weeks of evidence.

The jurors will then rule whether a string of additional factors - including identification, photographs, communications and orders issued from the control room at New Scotland Yard - caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes.

They will have to decide whether differences in police officers' accounts were caused by "failure of recollection" or by "misunderstandings and failures of communication" at the time, the coroner said.

The inquest at the Oval cricket ground, south London, heard from 100 witnesses, including the two men who shot the electrician dead.

URGENT APPEAL FROM MENEZES FAMILY TO SUPPORTERS

2008-12-03T18:30:00.002Z

Dear Friends

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the support you have given our family over the last 3 ½ years. We have been humbled by your support and on days like today, knowing that you are behind us, gives us the strength to carry on.

Today was an incredibly sad day for our family. We lost our appeal in the High Court and it was devastating. We cannot believe the jury will not get to decide if Jean was unlawfully killed or comment on the evidence in their own words.

Tomorrow all of Jean’s cousins who live in the UK and will be attending the final part of the inquest to hear the end of the Coroners summing up. We hope you can join us.

Join us on the last day of this inquest to fill the public gallery in a sign of solidarity with our family. Solidarity against injustice, against lies, against cover ups, against collusion, against a system which has repeatedly blocked, silenced and stopped all the avenues we have tried to pursue for justice.

We have been patient, we have been respectful, we have done everything they could have asked and we have got nothing. Another person could be shot and killed, another family could go through the horrendous ordeal we have gone through. Nothing has changed. Words cannot bring me to express how that feels after everything we have done.

But we still have faith in the jury to do the right thing. They have the power to do that.

I hope to see you at the inquest tomorrow. We will be holding a press conference after the jury have gone out to express our feelings at this time.

Vivien Figuerdo, Cousin of Jean Charles, on behalf of the Menezes Family

What is the purpose of an inquest?

2008-12-02T19:55:00.007Z

Deaths in custody inquests have special status. The purposes of such inquests have particular requirements as they engage Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998).

The leading legal judgement on what the purpose of an article 2 inquest is came after a ruling in the case of the racist murder of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham Young Offenders Institution. In R (Amin) v Home Secretary [2003] UKHL 51 Lord Bingham summarised the purposes of an inquest which engaged article 2 of the Human Rights Act:

“The purposes of such an investigation are clear:

to ensure as far as possible that the full facts are brought to light;
that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice;
that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed;
that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified;
and that those who have lost their relative may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from his death may save the lives of others.”

The inquest into Jean Charles de Menezes’ death is supposed to be an ‘Article 2’ inquest

J4J Campaign

MENEZES FAMILY TAKE FIGHT ON VERDICTS TO HIGH COURT

2008-12-02T14:39:00.005Z

Lawyers for the Menezes family are going to the High Court today to apply for a judicial review of the Coroner's decision on the verdict options being left for the jury.

Earlier today, members of the Menezes family and their supporters walked out of court at the beginning of the Coroner's summing up to express their dissatisfaction with the turn of events at the inquest.

A spokesperson for the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign said,

"It is essential in a case of this significance that a jury is given the widest opportunity to comment on all the evidence they have heard. We await the decision of the High Court and hope a just outcome will prevail."

An application for judicial review is taking place this afternoon.

We cannot comment on proceedings anymore at present due to legal technicalities but send our heartfelt thanks to all the members of the public who are contacting us with messages of support and expressing their disgust at the situation as it is.<

J4J Campaign

ITN News Coverage:

WHAT IS A NARRATIVE VERDICT?

2008-12-01T19:59:00.003Z

Following requests for information from supporters, here is an explanation of narrative verdicts.

Narrative verdicts are a recent extension in the kind of verdicts juries can return at inquest. They were introduced after caselaw interpreted that for inquests that engage article 2 of the Human Rights Act (the right to life), short form verdicts such as ‘unlawful’ or ‘lawful’ may not always be enough to satisfy the requirements for a full inquiry. All deaths in custody and at deaths at the hands of state agents fall under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act.

Narrative verdicts are now quite common in inquests as they give the jury the opportunity to explain, in their own words, their findings on hearing all of the evidence. A narrative can be in the form of questions which the jury have to answer, or a more free form where the jury can put their verdict in their own words.

Examples of narrative verdicts:

Only last month, the inquest into the death in police custody of Mark Camm delivered a 7 page highly critical narrative verdict

The inquest into the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed also delivered a lengthy narrative where the jury were able to put in their own words their comments on the evidence they heard. The narrative verdict in that case is available here.

J4J Campaign

UPDATE ON INQUEST PROCEEDINGS

2008-11-30T18:51:00.003Z

Although the Coroner's summing up was scheduled to start on 1st December it has been delayed as further submissions on verdicts are taking place on 1st.

For Justice4Jean supporters who are unfamilar with the inquest system, at an inquest a Coroner has the power to decide what verdicts can be left for a jury to consider. He can leave short form verdicts such as 'unlawful', 'lawful' or 'open' but also has the option of leaving what is known as as a 'narrative verdict' whereby the jury have the option of answering a set of agreed questions or where a jury can return a verdict where in their own words they can comment on the evidence they have heard.

After his summing up, a Coroner will direct the jury over these possible verdicts that he believes they should consider. Though if course as jury's are the 'finders of fact' in an inquest, that is to say they are the ones who have to decide on the evidence, it is ultimately up to them what they choose to return.

After 3 and 1/2 years of cover ups, lies, let down's by the state bodies who have been investigating the death such as the CPS and IPCC, the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign believes it is essential that the jury are able to fully comment on all the evidence in order to deliver a meaningful result.

We await the Coroner's decision with anticipation.

J4J Campaign

Justice4Jean deliver leaving present to Blair

2008-11-29T19:16:00.002Z

Check out the following links for images of the Justice4Jean Campaign delivering their leaving present to Sir Ian Blair

http://www.itvlocal.com/london/news/?void=263418

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7753415.stm

Justice4Jean Present Sir Ian Blair With Indictment on Last Day of Office

2008-11-28T11:12:00.004Z

Above: Banner unfurled outside New Scotland Yard

This morning members of the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign marked Sir Ian’s Blair’s last day by delivering him a leaving present of a large blown up indictment. The indictment listed six acts Blair has been guilty of during his time in office.

Members of the campaign read the indictment outside New Scotland Yard and unveiled a 3 metre long banner which contained a picture of Jean Charles and the message “Sir Ian Blair – This is your legacy”. The indictment was accepted by officers at New Scotland Yard.

A spokesperson for the Justice4Jean Campaign said,

“We are delivering this indictment as a reminder of Blair’s failings over the Menezes shooting and to ensure that his successor understands that until there is justice for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, this case will continue to blight the Metropolitan Police Service.

It is particularly pertinent that we delivered this indictment today as next week the jury at the inquest return to begin deliberating their verdict. We hope the jury will be given the opportunity to consider a verdict which is appropriate to the injustice of the killing and that these ordinary members of the public deliver a verdict which will finally allow some justice to prevail over this tragedy”

You can download a copy of the indictment here [PDF, 2Mb]

For further information please contact 07709656251 or 07931337890 or email justice4jean@gmail.com

Statement on the costs to local councils of the Menezes inquest

2008-11-20T13:47:00.005Z

The Justice4Jean campaign wholeheratedly supports calls for the estimated £4m cost of the inquest into Jean's death to be met by the central government and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Under Ministry of Justice rules, four local councils - Lewisham, Greenwich, Southwark and Lambeth - will share the costs, which will ultimately be borne by local council tax payers. However, Jean's death has important implications for national policy and practice on policing and anti-terrorism, which has required a lengthy inquest and a venue suitable for the level of national and international interest it has attracted.

The government should make an exception for what is an exceptional situation and reimburse the four local councils for the financial burden they face.

J4J campaign