11 May 2007

The human rights group Liberty today expressed bitter disappointment that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has again delayed its determination of whether disciplinary action will be taken against senior officers named in the investigation into the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. Mr. Menezes, a Brazillian electrician, was shot seven times by police during a botched anti-terror operation in Stockwell underground station in July 2005.

Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The public is still none the wiser as to the adequacy of police guidance on lethal force. The Menezes tragedy happened nearly two years ago. Have the public, police or victim’s family been well-served by such inordinate delay at the IPCC?”

The IPCC stated that 11 of 15 officers named in the investigation will be cleared of any disciplinary offences, but action in regard to the four remaining senior officers will be delayed until the Scotland Yard trial brought by the Crown Prosecution Service under heath and safety laws over the death of Mr. Menezes is completed. The trial is due to begin in the fall of 2007.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 079 7383 1128

NOTES TO EDITORS


Liberty’s Public Statement following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes

July 2005

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (part of our Human Rights Act) protects the right to life and places onerous obligations on the State to protect the lives of all us. This principle places tight limitations on the use of deliberate and lethal force.

Such action is the gravest of steps in a democracy. It can only ever be justified where “absolutely necessary”; where there is no other way of effectively protecting the lives of others.

Even in the context of a suspected suicide bomber, Article 2 requires that everything possible is done to avoid a moment where lethal force is the only viable means of preventing the suspect from detonating a device and bringing injury and death to others. However, there may be situations where lethal force is the only means of protecting huge loss of life.

It is important to draw a distinction between accepting that such action might be justified and the need to scrutinise any policy that allows for an innocent man to be shot in the head eight times. Whenever someone dies at the hands of the State, there must be a fully independent and comprehensive Inquiry. This applies whether the person concerned was innocent, reasonably suspected or even guilty of criminality. This Inquiry must answer questions about the surveillance operation; the pursuit of Mr de Menezes; and why non-lethal action was not taken. It must also scrutinise guidance given on the use of lethal force, the training of officers, and the adequacy of intelligence and information through the chain of the command. The Inquiry should not be a witch-hunt, but everything must be done to ensure that no more innocent people die.

Many Londoners, particularly those from ethnic minorities, will now be concerned not only about future terrorist attacks but also further police shootings. The police took great care to allay fears after recent attacks. They should now do everything possible to reassure the public that Mr de Menezes’ death was a tragic mistake that will not be repeated. We look forward to a prompt and satisfactory conclusion to the current criminal and Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiries. Liberty strives never to prejudge legal process, whether it concerns an asylum seeker or a police officer. We believe that these investigations and any further police operations must be governed by the human rights values set out above.