Jean Charles de Menezes Case
- Posted by e2 on 02.16.09
- Tags Family Changes, Modern Family
- 1 Comment »
This is the letter from Crown Prosecution Service related to Jean Charles case:
Dear Harriet,
Re: Jean Charles de Menezes
Although the jury did not return a verdict of unlawful killing (the option not being left by the coroner) so that the case of R v DPP ex parte Manning and Melbourne did not, strictly speaking, apply, nevertheless I did conduct a further review. I considered all the evidence given at the inquest as well as that given at the trial in 2006, in order to see if any person or persons should be prosecuted for any offence arising either out of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes or for evidence given at the inquest.
For the reasons set out below I have come to the conclusion that the Code for Crown Prosecutors is not met in relation to any individual (I leave ‘Owen’ to one side as the IPCC are still considering his conduct.)
I first considered C2 and C12. There are two issues relating to them; first did they shoot Jean Charles in self defence and secondly did they lie about what was said and done (by Jean Charles and themselves) immediately before they shot him? For any prosecution for homicide to be considered, the Crown would need to be able to prove, to the criminal standard, that they were not acting in self defence. I note that it was the coroner’s view that there was insufficient evidence to leave the issue of unlawful killing to the jury, nevertheless I went on to consider whether there was sufficient evidence available to prosecute them for murder.
I concluded that although the jury’s answer to specific questions cast doubt on their veracity on certain aspects of their evidence, there was insufficient evidence to show that these two officers did not honestly and genuinely believe that they were confronting a suicide bomber about to blow up the people on the train. In those circumstances, I have no doubt that a jury would conclude that the actions they took, in that belief, were reasonable to meet that perceived threat. I then turned to the question of perjury. The answers by the jury to the specific questions: was a warning shouted, did Jean Charles stand up and did he move towards the officers? make it clear, albeit to the civil standard, that the jury did not accept the officers’ accounts.
I take due note of the jury’s answers but I also have to bear in mind that it is the evidence that must inform my conclusions. Whilst there are some inconsistencies between some of the officers’ accounts there are also some inconsistencies in the passengers’ accounts. Some heard shouting before the shots (although none say it came from C12) and yet others were adamant that no shouting took place at all until afterwards. For example Terri Godly whose statement was read said she heard warnings and a call of ‘armed police’ before any shots were fired and Holly Greenland also claimed to have heard shouting before shots were fired. The two witnesses, Livock and Wilson who give the most credible accounts and were closest to the incident, failed to notice that two officers and not one, were firing. The prosecution cannot pick and choose which witnesses to call and which to ignore, when all are equally capable of belief. I do not seek to undermine the accounts given by the witnesses but simply to demonstrate that those few brief moments present a totally confusing picture which a jury would not be able to say with the degree of certainty required, that officers had lied to the inquest.
