Jean Charles de Menezes shooting coroner asks the jury to answer pertinent questions

The questionnaire

The transcripts of the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes are here:

http://stockwellinquest.org.uk/hearing_transcripts/

From the summing up, December 4, 2008, page 26 at line 20. In addition to returning either a “lawful killing” or “open” verdict, the coroner asks the jury to decide on three factual questions, to be answered with a “yes” or “no” answer.

• 1: (page 27 at line 5): ‘did officer Charlie 12 shout “armed police” at Mr de Menezes before firing?’

• 2: (page 30 at line 22) “did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?”

• 3: (page 31 at line 21) “did Mr de Menezes move towards officer Charlie before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?”

A fourth question concerns nine possible contributory factors. Factors quoted directly from the text following the above cited factual questions.

• 4a: (page 33 at line 12) “the suicide attacks and attempted attacks of July 2005 and the pressure placed on the Metropolitan Police in responding to this threat.”

• 4b: (page 35 at line 1) “a failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the suspect Hussain Osman for the surveillance team.”

• 4c: (page 37 at line 17) “a failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.”

• 4d: (page 41 at line 15) “the general difficulty in providing an identification for the man under surveillance, Mr de Menezes, in the time available and in the circumstances after he had left the block at Scotia Road.”

• 4e: (page 42 at line 20) “the innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicion of some officers.”

(This refers to misinterpretation of behavior by de Menezes which, while innocent, increased suspicion).

• 4f: (page 43 at line 23) “the fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.”

• 4g: (page 44 at line 25) “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.”

• 4h: (page 46 at line 10) “any significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and New Scotland Yard.”

• 4i: (page 47 at line 14) “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.”

Officer Charlie 12 was the first of two firearms officers, members of the Scotland Yard unit known as CO19, who shot de Menezes. Officer Ivor was a surveillance officer, a member of the Special Branch SO12 unit, who had followed de Menezes onto the tube train, identified de Menezes as the suspect to Charlie 12, and subsequently grabbed de Menezes in an apparent effort to immobilize him.

The jury is still deliberating. On Tuesday they asked if they could return a majority verdict, and were given leave to do so although the coroner urged them to strive for unanimity.

• Metropolitan Police Introduction to the Special Branch (PDF)