|
|
警察不会为吉恩·查尔斯· de Menezes杀害被检控
星期二， 2009年2月17日
由 保罗债券 冠起诉服务(CPS)宣布了警察不会面对试验为吉恩·查尔斯· de Menezes杀害的星期五。 CPS回顾了跟随存疑判决的案件测量在12月由审讯陪审员，拒绝事件警察帐户。 de Menezes的家庭宣布他们将起诉苏格兰围场为损伤。 吉恩·查尔斯· de Menezes，一位年轻巴西电工，在2005年7月22日，二个星期在杀害56个人的伦敦被射击了死在7月7日轰炸以后。 他弄错了为不合格的7月21日轰炸机之一和从他的舱内甲板落后了由反恐怖官员。 他们在头然后破裂了伦敦地下火车，被别住的吉恩·查尔斯下来并且射击了他七次在近距离平射射程。 在杀害的直接苏醒有一群媒介报告建议de Menezes是行为是疑神疑鬼的一个知道的恐怖嫌疑犯。 它被报道他穿着也许已经隐瞒了炸弹，并且，当由警察挑战在Stockwell驻地他时飞跃了票障碍和奔跑火车的一件庞大的夹克。 事件的这个版本显露是整个地错误的。 实际上他们认为的警察有没有清楚地辨认他的均匀，人他们以下， Hussain Osman。 他没有穿着庞大的衣物和没有跳跃票障碍在逃避捕获的Stockwell驻地或否则。 他在火车，宁可，拾起一张自由报纸并且走了下来到平台在采取一个位子之前。 目击者说他未由警察挑战也未警告在持续之前和被杀害。 有迅速移动掩盖案件的细节和保证没人举行了负责任。 调查什么都由独立警察怨言委员会没有建立。 One year after the killing, the CPS ruled out prosecuting any of the officers involved on the grounds that there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.” Instead they brought charges against the Metropolitan Police under the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to provide for de Menezes’s “health, safety and welfare.” This prosecution explicitly ruled out consideration of the legality of the killing and heard no evidence from officers or witnesses. It served to prevent a closer examination of “Operation Kratos,” the shoot-to-kill policy adopted previously as part of the “war on terror.” Kratos gives Scotland Yard authority to deploy armed squads and, if necessary, to deliver a “critical head shot” to suspected bombers. As emerged during last year’s inquest, police were prepared to take the “critical shot” without the immediate authority of a senior officer “because of the structures that were in place.” In other words, that authority was already laid down at a higher level. Although the police appealed against the Health and Safety prosecution, it was little more than a slap on the wrist, as any resultant fines would be borne by the taxpayer. The police were fined ?175,000 in 2007, and the CPS resisted calls from the family for a full investigation. Last year’s three-month inquest was held under pressure from de Menezes’s family, but the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, laid down restrictions. It was, he insisted, a fact-finding inquest, which could not return a verdict inconsistent with the Health and Safety prosecution. Blanket anonymity was granted to police officers wherever requested. Even with these safeguards, the inquest was revealing of the police operation. Eyewitnesses rejected the police version of events on the train, insisting that de Menezes received no warning and that firearms officers did not identify themselves. Firearms officers admitted that they wrote their statements after conferring among themselves, and after they knew they had shot the wrong person. No CCTV evidence was supposedly available for Stockwell station, nor was any video surveillance evidence available for de Menezes’s flat. No audio recordings of communication between officers were provided, nor were any records of the briefings given to firearms and surveillance officers. Doubts were also cast on the surveillance log, when it was revealed that an officer had removed a line from his notes which contradicted police claims that Menezes posed a threat. Wright attempted to limit the damage as far as possible. He told jurors that he would not allow a verdict of unlawful killing. He supported the argument of the police legal teams that the evidence would only support a lawful killing or open verdict. He also accepted their demand that the scope of the jury’s narrative be limited to a set of specific questions to which they could answer only yes, no, or cannot decide. The family’s lawyers noted that the questions were framed in a “highly offensive: and prejudicial way. They included the suggestion that de Menezes might have been in some way to blame for his death because “his innocent behaviour…may have aroused officers’ suspicions.” Wright dismissed the family’s lawyers arguments that there was sufficient evidence to permit consideration of an unlawful killing (murder) verdict in respect of the two policemen who shot de Menezes, and an unlawful killing (gross negligence, manslaughter) verdict in respect of former commander Cressida Dick, presently deputy assistant commissioner, and two other commanders. Wright appealed to the precedent of the Health and Safety trial, which concluded that Dick bore “no personal culpability.” Lawyer Gareth Peirce pointed out that the family had highlighted “25 serious and catastrophic failures” on Dick’s part alone. Wright rejected requests that the jury be given a “comprehensive” set of questions and allowed to write a “meaningful” narrative in their own words. When Wright ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing, members of de Menezes’s family instructed their legal team to cease participating in the inquest and to challenge the decision through legal review. The family protested in the courtroom, wearing t-shirts saying, “Your Legal Right To Decide” and “Unlawful Killing Verdict.” A gagging order was placed on the press and family to prevent them from publicising the legal challenge and the protest, while Wright gave “the wholly misleading impression that the family’s legal counsel were in agreement with his decisions.” Wright rejected requests to adjourn the inquest pending pursuit of the judicial review and proceeded with his summing up. He also issued the list of questions to the jury, effectively ensuring that the challenge could not succeed. The jury’s verdict was still the most damaging outcome to the Metropolitan Police, given these restrictions. By an eight-to-two majority they presented an open verdict, thereby rejecting the police claims that this was a lawful killing. They rejected claims by the officers that de Menezes had been warned, and criticised the police operation. Harriet Wistrich, the family’s lawyer, called for the prosecution of officers for perjury. Because of this, the CPS was forced reluctantly to review the inquest evidence. Stephen O’Doherty, a reviewing lawyer, acknowledged that the jury had not accepted the accounts from the two officers who killed de Menezes, identified at the inquest as C2 and C12, and that their evidence had been inconsistent. O’Doherty said that he considered whether C2 and C12 had acted in self-defence, as it had been claimed that de Menezes stood and moved towards the officers when they entered the train. O’Doherty also considered whether they lied to the inquest about what was said and done prior to the shooting. He concluded that “although there were some inconsistencies in what the officers said…there were also inconsistencies in what passengers had said,” and that “in the confusion of what occurred on the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events.” This is a further attempt to exonerate the police, as the inquest had heard that officers had written up statements after discussions. The misleading written statements by police officers are here made equivalent to the recollections of eyewitnesses not heard publicly before. As the jury indicated, they were pretty sure that officers had given false accounts. They rejected C12’s claim that he had shouted “armed police” prior to firing and disputed police claims that de Menezes approached the officers. Further, O’Doherty said that he had reconsidered the question of culpability of officers in the police management team and that, “There was no fresh evidence which caused me to change my original decision that there was insufficient evidence to do so.” Jean Charles de Menezes’s cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, told the press, “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.” Have Your Say: Police will not be prosecuted for Jean Charles de Menezes killing Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Video Evidence: Fabled Enemies Last post by Victor @ 04:52 PM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Lusitania Last post by Unregistered @ 04:03 PM Blueprint for EU army to be agreed Last post by Nostalgia @ 03:24 PM NYU Student Protest Over; Dozens Suspended Last post by Nostalgia @ 03:20 PM Pubs ordered to install Big Brother CCTV cameras - or risk losing licences Last post by Nostalgia @ 03:14 PM Transportation secretary eyes taxing miles driven Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:49 PM Is Economic Recovery Even Possible on a Planet Headed for Environmental Collapse? Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:46 PM YouTube video traps cannabis grower Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:35 PM Popular Rage Grows as Global Crisis Worsens Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:27 PM UK "could experience a crash similar to Iceland" Last post by Unregistered @ 12:44 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive
|
TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS |
LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS |
|
|
UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat The Banality of Corporate Evil Facebook now owns your content - forever Scottish Ministers 'completely opposed' to ID cards |
milky white pussy commented on: F.A.C.K. YOU … Continue Reading & Reply Kelly Terbun commented on: Leave my dad alone, says Jenna Bush You are a very smart person! Continue Reading & Reply Abby C. commented on: Appeals Court Rules for E-Mail Privacy Very observant post. Keep up the good work! Continue Reading & Reply Moi commented on: UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on drugs Wat is a ‘Medicone ’? As much as some random chemical can help man then so can Mary Jane... Continue Reading & Reply |
|
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
