Attack in London Today

There are however to be charges under health and safety legislation along the lines of "the Metropolitan Police did not do enough to ensure the health and safety of ...."

The Wrap alert: De Menezes report - exclusive

Thursday August 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Britain's top counter-terrorism police officer 'deliberately' misled the Metropolitan police commissioner about the fatal shooting of the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, the official report into the Met's handling of the incident says. Guardian Unlimited has obtained a copy of the report in advance of its official release.

2pm update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Met chief was misled over De Menezes shooting, report finds


Vikram Dodd and agencies
Thursday August 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Britain's most senior counter-terrorism police officer deliberately misled his own commissioner about the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an official report has found.
The report, by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, was released at midday.

Earlier today, the Guardian obtained a leaked copy of the full 134-page document, which makes swingeing criticisms of the Metropolitan police.

The report says it has "serious concern" over the conduct of Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, and finds that complaints against him are upheld.
De Menezes, a Brazilian, was shot dead at 10am on July 22 2005 after officers mistook him for a terrorist. The shooting came a day after failed suicide bomb attacks on London's transport system.
The IPCC finds that complaints against Mr Hayman - who is still in charge of counter-terrorism - are substantiated, and gives a clear signal it believes he should face disciplinary action. The Metropolitan police authority will now decide what action to take.

Speaking at a press conference today, Mehmuda Mian Pritchard, a member of the IPCC, said Mr Hayman's failings "were the most serious".

Asked what disciplinary measure should be taken, she said that was "not an issue for the IPCC".

Complaints against the Met police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, are not upheld. The IPCC finds he was not told about a large amount of evidence suggesting the wrong man had been shot, and did not know until the next day.

Mr Hayman told IPCC investigators that he could not remember what he told the Crime Reporters' Association about the shooting at a briefing on the afternoon of July 22.

The IPCC report disagrees, with the claim, saying: "There is compelling corroboration that AC Hayman categorically stated at the CRA briefing that the deceased was not one of the four wanted men."

About 30 minutes later, Mr Hayman attended a meeting of top Met officers and senior Whitehall officials at Scotland Yard.

The report finds: "It is apparent that he deliberately withheld the information, both that he briefed the CRA and on the contents of that briefing, despite being asked for information by the commissioner.

"He therefore misled the commissioner, other senior MPS [Metropolitan police service] officers and representatives from the MPA and HO [home office] who were present."

The IPCC says Mr Hayman's actions in relation to his briefing of the CRA and then misleading the attendees at the 5pm management board meeting and sub-meeting led to inaccurate or misleading information being released by the MPS.

The IPCC says the MPS released "incorrect" information at a press conference fronted by Sir Ian at 3.30pm on the day of the shooting.

The information wrongly said De Menezes had been challenged by officers, and had refused to stop when ordered. The IPCC states that the Brazilian was "completely innocent".

The report concludes that there is no evidence that Sir Ian lied. "However, the MPA should consider why the commissioner remained uninformed of key information emerging during July 22 2005," it says.

It finds Sir Ian was not aware of the serious doubts among his own senior staff on the day of the shooting until months later.

"If, despite the briefing by AC [Alan] Brown on the morning of July 23, the commissioner was still not fully aware by November 2005 of the extent to which evidence about the identity of the deceased had emerged on July 22 or the extent to which knowledge of that evidence had spread, then this is another indication of a failure to keep the commissioner briefed on critical issues," it says.

"What the commissioner could and should have been told was the importance of evidence that pointed to a terrible mistake having been made," Naseen Malik, another IPCC member, told the press conference.

Ms Pritchard added: "The commissioner was not well served by his staff, who failed to keep him informed. They made a very passive view of their duty to keep him informed at all times."

Asked whether Sir Ian should have made more effort to be informed, David Petch, another IPCC member, said: "He asked direct questions on the day. You might argue that he could have been more active, but it's not for use to judge."

The report also finds Sir Ian personally oversaw press statements that later turned out to be wrong at a time when he believed the shot man was a terrorist.

However, once he found out the dead man was innocent, his involvement ceased: "Once the commissioner had chosen to personally involve himself in the preparation of media releases, he had a responsibility to ensure that they were accurate and reflected the current position."

The IPCC says it found "significant weakness" in the Met over the way in which it handles critical information.

In a statement, the MPS said it "accepts that there were errors in both internal and external communication, for which we apologise".

The statement adds: "But the criticism made of the timing of when officers informed the commissioner about the emerging identity of Mr De Menezes could be open to other interpretations. These are judgment issues."

The MPS said it could not comment on criticisms of Mr Hayman, because they were now a matter for the Metropolitan police authority.

That is the point- (because there is a conspiracy within the Met to damage of discredit Sir Ian Blair) that either he lied to the public, or he was not told by his staff what was going on; that is, he does not enjoy the confidence nor the loyalty of his staff
Either way, it looks bad for him.

Yes.

There are however to be charges under health and safety legislation along the lines of "the Metropolitan Police did not do enough to ensure the health and safety of ...."

Jesus wept.

There are two major legal events going on in London at the moment, one the trial of the Metropolitan Police for 'health and safety' failures over the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes, and the other the Diana inquest.

These proceedings will cost many millions of pounds and will divert the attention of people who have more important things to be getting on with. What will be their effect? For one thing, whatever verdict is reached in each case there will be those who dismiss it and continue to wallow in conspiracy theories. If the Menezes case results in a conviction a judge (paid from the public purse) will fine the Met (ditto) a vast amount of money that will reduce the effectiveness of the way the Met does its job. This should have been dealt with by a grade-A bollocking delivered by the Home Secretary to a Commissioner standing to attention with his hat on, with an instruction to see that it never happens again.

The Diana inquest will achieve nothing whatever except headlines because the conspiracy vs accident theorists are entrenched in their positions, beyond the reach of reason.

What a vast and pointless waste of time and money these two freakshows represent. Still, it will at least stave off penury for the legions of lawyers and bag-carriers involved.