Another Whitewash at The Oval

The familiar dank smell of whitewash is seeping out of The Oval today. Usually it’s the Australians who are responsible for the odour, accustomed as they are to drubbing our hapless cricketers five-nil in The Ashes. This time the stench is emanating from the mouth of Sir Michael Wright QC.

Sir Michael is the coroner sitting on the jury inquest in the John Major Room at the Oval into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot seven times in the head in July 2005 on the London Underground by armed police who believed he was a suicide bomber.





The coroner ruled yesterday that the jury could not decide 27-year-old Mr de Menezes was illegally killed. He would only permit them to bring in either an open verdict or one of lawful killing.

This stinks so much I hardly know where to start! Firstly, I am not entirely sure of the legality of Wright’s ruling. I know that coroner’s can, and do, guide juries on occasions and they have been known to offer them a choice of verdicts – but not when the whole spirit of the hearing is to establish in public whether or not a person was legally or illegally killed.

An inquest IS a court hearing but the rules governing it are somewhat more lax than in the criminal courts. Nevertheless, the coroner’s role is ostensibly that of a judge. He "records" a verdict in normal instances but in particular circumstances a jury is empanelled to "return" a verdict. Like a judge, the coroner is there to decide or rule on matters of law, that’s why a coroner is invariably a qualified lawyer. The role of the jury is the same as it is in criminal cases – to decide on matters of fact. It is the jury which decides guilt or innocence in a criminal court, it should be the jury which decides on the verdicts available to them at an inquest.

Unlawful killing is an obvious verdict which the jury at the de Menezes inquest should have considered, given the circumstances, but Wright said “no”. His justification was that, to his mind, the evidence did not justify such a verdict. S’CUSE ME, YOUR QC-SHIP, SHURELY SHUM MISHTAKE?? You’re there to decide on the law, it’s the jury which decides whether there is or is not evidence to justify a particular verdict. That’s the whole fucking point of having a jury in the first place!!!

This inquest has lasted 11 weeks, heard evidence from 100 witnesses and cost around £3 million. What, pray, was the bloody point of wasting all that money, all that time and the testimony of all those people if the coroner was going to decide what the fucking verdict should be at the end of it??

No evidence to justify a verdict of unlawful killing, eh? Well, what about every single independent eyewitness at the scene disputing the testimony of the police gunmen that they gave a warning to Mr Menezes? What did those witnesses have to gain by saying he was shot without any warning? What did the police officers have to gain by claiming they did give a warning? You do the maths, as they say.

What about the confusion among officers about whether Mr de Menezes had or had not been positively identified as the terrorist target they had been on the lookout for? What about the shooting seven times to the head? One would do it, I would have thought. Two would be a belt-and-braces exercise. Three is the sign of a man intent on doing a thorough job…….but seven??!!?? I think you’re into the realms of a gun-toting, unprofessional, inadequately trained nutter on the loose in public with a loaded weapon there!

No wonder Mr de Menezes’ family walked out in both grief and disgust when Wright made his ruling. Firstly, our out-of-control coppers kill their son for absolutely no justifiable reason. Then, either they or fellow passengers on that ill-fated Tube train lie about what actually happened. Finally, a senior judicial figure overrides the principal of “twelve good men/women and true” and rules that HE will decide what happened, not unbiased fellow citizens.

It is not the role of an inquest to apportion blame to specific individuals, I know. That, however, should not mean that a verdict of unlawful killing cannot be brought in a case where the chief suspect/s are known?

Once again, The Met will get off scott free. I just hope Mr de Menezes’ family brings a civil case against the officers and their commanders and then there is a chance they might actually get some closure. However, if the jury now brings in a lawful killing verdict then the current slim chance of any criminal prosecution will disappear altogether.

Sir Michael Wright QC can go to Grantham - Pither's ruling!