Five years on from the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes

and no justice for Ian Tomlinson :


LRC Press release:

No justice as police exonerated again


Ian Tomlinson died at the G20 protests on 1st April 2009. Today is also the 5th anniversary of the shooting by armed officers of Jean-Charles de Menezes. It has taken the CPS nearly a year to publish this report; their reasons are that it’s a “difficult and complex case”... Understandably the family of Ian Tomlinson was greatly concerned by the lengthy investigation fearing a cover-up and the impact this whole process has had on their lives. In April 2010, John McDonnell and leading civil liberties campaigners, MEPs and trade unionists wrote a letter to the Guardian to express their “growing concerns” about the investigation.

Today’s announcement illustrates that the police are a law unto themselves. Ian Tomlinson died in an unprovoked savage attack exposed on video yet that is not enough for the CPS to seek prosecution. Where is the justice for Ian Tomlinson’s family - who have described the decision as a “disgrace”?

John McDonnell MP, LRC Chair, said:

“Given the stark nature of the video evidence it is hard to understand the CPS’s findings. An independent public inquiry is warranted.”

Andrew Fisher, LRC joint secretary, said:

“Today’s incomprehensible decision is a stark reminder - on the fifth anniversary of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes - that too often the police are placed above the law. The campaign for justice for Ian Tomlinson will continue, just as it has for Jean Charles de Menezes and for Blair Peach - and the LRC will continue to support these campaigns.”


More info at the Inquest website.

Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

The jury were denied the option of an unlawful killing verdict , but after hearing all the evidence they have returned an open verdict.

They were asked twelve specific questions about whether or not a series of events on 22 July 2005 contributed to the 27-year-old's death and their response was :

After returning an open verdict, the 10 jurors rejected a string of claims made by officers about the events leading up to Mr de Menezes being killed.

The jurors concluded that six police failings caused or contributed to the innocent man's death.

After recording an open verdict, the jurors, who began considering their verdict at 2.40pm last Thursday, ruled the following:

* Firearms officer C12 did not shout the words "armed police" before opening fire.

* Mr de Menezes stood up from his seat before a surveillance officer, known as Ivor, grabbed him in a bear-hug.

* But the Brazilian did not move towards officer C12 before he was seized by Ivor.

They also concluded that six factors caused his death:

* A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the terror suspect Hussain Osman for the surveillance team.

* A failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.

* The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.

* The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team as the firearms officers were approaching Stockwell Station.

* There were significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and with New Scotland Yard.

* A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop.

But they found that the following two factors did not play a part in his death.

* The general difficulty in providing an identification of the man under surveillance in the time available and in the circumstances after he had left the block at Scotia Road.

* The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers.






I'll round up some comment on this later.

No Justice for Jean

The coroner in the inquest into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has banned the jury from returning a verdict of unlawful killing. Yes, banned. Just when they thought they were there to assess the evidence and pass a judgment, the boss man tells them that they can't even consider the one verdict that might make sense, let alone bring justice.

So whatever the killing was - and the remaining verdict options are 'lawful', 'open' and 'narrative' - it was not unlawful. And neither must the jury blame anyone. This despite evidence that:

• the police were 'out of control'
  
• the police gave no warning
  
• the police could have stopped Jean rather than killing him
  
• and a police officer changed his evidence

Coroner Sir Michael Wright told the jury that their choice of verdict now depends on whether they feel that the two officers who shot and killed the innocent Brazilian honestly believed that he represented an imminent, mortal threat. So the jury could decide that the two officers did not really believe that Jean represented an imminent, mortal threat, shot him dead anyway, and that would still not be 'unlawful killing'.

No wonder Sir Michael urged the jury to "Put aside any emotion". Perhaps he should also have urged them to put aside justice, accountability and even basic logic.

Nagging and Infidelty is no defence

Good on Harriet Harmon, that bourgeois feminist that she is - she's taking on the judges and telling them to get with it! No longer will "provocation" be accepted in crimes of murder where female partners and ex-partners are the victims. No longer will the excuse of she was a "nag" or she humiliated me when she left me for the local train-spotter" be a defence! And quite right too. See the article in the Observer here

There is a lot written about "Honour Based Violence" usually focused on BME communities however in indigenous Britain the defence of provocation is accepted when a husband murders his cheating or nagging wife. His honour was lost when his property left him for another man or she was sleeping with his friends - so he murdered her. It seems to be accepted but it should not be. It is in fact a murder in the context of domestic abuse - it is a domestic abuse murder. Joseph McGrail was cleared of murder in 1991 when a judge said "her nagging would test the patients of a saint". 120 women are murdered in Britain every year by their partners or ex-partners.

Activists have fought for years for provocation to be used in the cases of women like Emma Humphries, Kiranjit Ahluwalia and Sara Thorton who killed their abusers - but they were found to be murders and their abuse, their rape and torture was dismissed and these women were seen to be evil.

And further legislation will be coming into place to criminalise buying sex from a woman who is being prostituted for another's gain. I am glad this is all coming to pass. Buying sex from a woman who is pimped, trafficked or prostituted by another is not consensual sex and should be deemed as rape. The woman cannot give her free consent because her safety and life is controlled by another. I know it is controversal but I can't see how you can argue against that. Anyway good for Harriet Harman and I wish her best of luck when she battles it out with the civil servants and law lords and those that do not want to change the status quo.

There is no excuse for domestic abuse!

Guest post on Jean Charles de Menezes campaign

Charlie went to the campaign meeting and has kindly sent me these notes on how it went :


AFTER commemorating the third anniversary of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes with a wreath ceremony outside Parliament, family and friends of the Brazilian electrician have heard there's to be be an inquest, opening on September 22, at the Oval.

They are delighted that the case is being examined, but worried the limitations on this inquiry may obstruct their search for the whole truth, and for justice to be done.

At a meeting on Thursday evening, Yasmin Khan of the Justice4Jean campaign reminded us of the facts. On the morning of July 22, 2005, Jean Charles left his flat in south London for work. He boarded a bus, and got off at Stockwell tube station, where he stopped to pick up a newspaper, then paid by Oyster, and went down by escalator to catch his train. Seeing one already in, he ran to get on before the doors closed, and took a seat.

What Jean Charles did not know was that he had been followed from home by a special surveillance team that had been watching his block of flats for a terror suspect called Hussein Osman. One of these officers held the carriage doors open and a squad of armed officers entered. Jean Charles was restrained and then shot seven times in the head as he lay on the floor.

Immediately after the shooting a number of falsehoods were spread. It was said that the young Brazilian was wearing bulky clothing, such as an overcoat, on a Summer's day, leading officers to fear he had concealed explosives on him. (This was not long after the London bombings) In fact, he wore a thin denim jacket, as photographs show. He was supposed to have vaulted the ticket barrier and raced down the escalator to evade pursuit. But he had used an Oyster card, and only ran when he saw his train, probably anxious because he was late for work.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair told the Home Office the Independent Police Complaints Commission would not be allowed to investigate the shooting. The police claimed CCTV footage from Stockwell station or the train was not available because the cameras had not been working. London Underground said this was not so.

Yasmin said one reason for misgivings about the inquest was that the coroner had agreed that up to 50 police officers will be permitted to give their evidence behind closed doors and without identifying themselves. She agreed with a member of the audience who suggested that this was another propaganda move, to instil in the jury and public the notion that this was about "terror", and that the officers were risking danger, whereas it was we the public who needed protection.

Other questions raised in the meeting concerned the use of special bullets which were illegal, and to what extent army special forces had been involved in the killing.

Justice4Jean is hoping to give the inquest maximum publicity and attention, and urges as many people who can to attend the inquest, especially on the opening day, when firearms officers are expected to be in court.

The campaign is setting up a special blog for the inquest at Justice4Jean.

Jean Charles de Menezes - updates

Couple of updates I received via Facebook:

Justice4Jean Blog

"The campaign has set up a blog that will be updated during the course of the inquest, which is expected to last up to three months.

There's obviously not much to see just at the moment, as the inquest doesn't start until 22nd September and we don't yet have details of the official website that the Coroner will be setting up.

But visit and bookmark the blog at:

Justice4Jean

Justice4Jean Organising Meeting


LATEST

INQUEST INTO JEAN'S DEATH STARTS 22nd SEPT

Mobilising Meeting called by the Family Campaign:

Thursday 4th September 2008 6.30-8pm

Room G2,
School of Oriental and African Studies
Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square WC1H 0XG

ALL WELCOME

(Hosted by SOAS Palestine Society)

The campaign is asking for supporters to attend the first day of the inquest – the 22nd September – and help us mobilise for this day.

We want to send a strong message out at the beginning of the inquest and need your help to do it, so please join us on the 4th and get involved in the campaign for Justice 4 Jean.

Woman's Drinking Not To Blame For Rape

Good news. A woman has successfully challenged a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to cut her compensation for being raped on the grounds that she had been drinking beforehand. The CICA admits that it probably made the same 'mistake' (read: sexist victim-blame) in 14 other cases, and will now review its practice on this issue.

The compensation payout concerned was a mere £11,000, hardly a fortune especially compared with the £4.5m paid to Ben Collett, whose football career was terminated by a nasty tackle.

Nearly three years ago, I blogged about the tendency to blame women who have been drinking for being assaulted. Such nasty excusing of the perpetrator, and of the system that endorses him, is undoubtedly still with us. But at least this victory for one woman may have made a dent in it.

Now, let's see ... How about the CICA reviewing its view that a mother who takes her kids out on fireworks night should expect to lose an eye?!

Prison Campaigner Pauline Campbell Found Dead Near Daughter's Grave

Terrible news today, as prisons campaigner Pauline Campbell has been found dead by the gates of the cemetery containing her daughter's grave.

Pauline had campaigned for the rights of women prisoners since her daughter Sarah died in Styal Prison in 2003 from a drugs overdose. She continually mounted one-woman protests outside women's prisons, drawing attention to the number of deaths of women prisoners - numbers which would be shocking if people actually got to hear about them. Thanks to Pauline, more people got to hear about them than otherwise would.

It is devastating that her protests have come to an end in such a tragic way.

Satisfaction Survey

The Tribunals Service has written to me asking me to take part in a survey on my experiences of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.

Ha ha ha.

No Justice For Janine

Today I got the final decision: I will receive no compensation for losing my eye when it was hit by a firework set off sideways in a public park on 5th November 2005.

For background, my old blog can tell you the details of the horrible incident itself, having facial reconstruction surgery six months later, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) turning down my application for compensation in September 2006, getting a false eye a month later, and marking the anniversary by taking my kids to a firework display and giving a firework safety talk to some year 6 kids. Since then, my false eye has failed because my eyeball continued to shrink; I am having a new one fitted next month, but in the 50:50 event of it shrinking further, will have to have it surgically removed and replaced by an implant.

But oh no, no compensation for you, Janine.

Today was my appeal hearing - the final stage. The CICA is supposed to pay out to victims of violent crime if the action is deliberate or reckless. The panel of three - a lawyer, a doctor and a lay person - rejected my appeal on the grounds that what happened to me was a 'tragic accident'.

Together with my legal team, whom I wouldn't fault at all, I pointed out to the panel that a firework only goes off sideways if it is deliberately pointed that way or if it is set off recklessly. If you pay proper care and attention, it goes upwards. Moreover, the particular group of people who set off the firework had already let one off sideways a couple of minutes beforehand - sufficiently scaring me that I was rounding up my children to take them home when I was struck. Once might possibly, conceivably, be an accident: twice is downright reckless if not deliberate. Oh, and legging it and leaving other people to help me and call the ambulance is pretty reckless too.

But this evidence made no impression on the majority of the panel (though one of the three seemed more sympathetic than the others). They - and the Presenting Officer, the geezer who defends the CICA's refusal of the claim - were much more concerned with suggesting that it might be my fault for venturing out with my kids on fireworks night in the first place. I knew it was dangerous, didn't I? Well maybe, but so did all the other millions of parents who took their kids out that night too. What am I supposed to do? Lock my kids up on 5th November every year and have them grow up resenting their killjoy mum?

Then came the death blow to my chances of winning: the police. On the night, the coppers had told me that I was the victim of a crime, that they would give me a crime number, that I would receive compensation. They wrote to me the next day with the crime number, in a letter that stated clearly that I was the victim of a crime of violence. They referred me to Victim Support, who only support victims of crime, not victims of accidents. It was only when the CICA rejected my application ten months later that I found out that the police had deemed it an 'accident' instead. You might speculate that their inability to secure a conviction led them to declare it an 'accident' because that's less embarrassing for them than 'unsolved crime' - I could not possibly comment.

The police officer who attended today described my injury as 'horrific', adding that he had seen gunshot wounds, stabbings, even a person impaled on an iron bar, but that in his ten years of policing, mine was the worst injury he had seen (and he personally only saw me in the hospital, by which time I had been cleaned up a little). But he insisted on giving evidence and answering questions in a way that he must have known would lead to me receiving no compensation. At least one member of the panel seemed to be enormously grateful to the officer for attending (although it's just part of his job to do so) and gave me the impression that he would believe everything a copper said above anyone else. The Detective Constable got none of the suggestive and hostile questioning that I got.

As I understand it, since 1995 governments have successively tightened up the criteria for criminal injuries compensation, making it harder and harder to get some kind of recompense for life-changing damage. The CICA has even refused claims from Tube workers who went through the trauma of the 7/7 bombings at close hand if they weren't quite close enough. So while the Tories and New Labour compete with each other in speeches about who cares most about the victims of crime, behind the scenes both parties have whittled away the rights of those victims.

As one of my friends texted to me on hearing the verdict: it adds insult to injury.

No justice, no peace....

What has Christpher Alder, Brian Douglas, Sarah Campbell, Orville Blackwood, Rocky Bennett, Gareth Myatt, Zahid Mubarek, Joseph Scholes, Jean-Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley, Adam Rickwood........and many more have all in common?

They have died at the hands of the state whether it was in police custody, shoot to kill policies, psychiatric hospitals and special hospitals.

This procession was organised by United Families and Friends Committee (UFFC) and Inquest. It is to remember people who have died in these circumstances. Every year (this was the 9th procession) the demos get bigger as more people die at the hands of state institutions.

There's a real poignancy, vibrancy and emotion about these demos as families and friends come together to show support and solidarity towards each other and to make demands on the state. Speakers expressed anger at the way Parliament ignored the Lords recommendation to include deaths in police custody in the Corporate Manslaughter Bill. Pauline Campbell (who I have heard speak many times) spoke about the number of women who have died in prison since the start of 2007 (7 to be precise) and the fact she has been arrested around 14 times for protesting outside hell-holes like Styal prison.

We marched to Down Street where representatives from the families handed in a letter to Gordon Brown. Flowers were laid outside Downing Street as well to remember the dead.

As speaker after speaker said: "No peace without justice"