This week, Panorama looked at the events of 22nd July 2005 that led to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
I’ve already blogged about my concerns over the whole incident, and to be frank having seen the Panorama report, I’m even more concerned.
Essentially the conclusions of the programme were that Menezes was shot because he was incorrectly identified by special branch surveillance officers as one of the bombing suspects. The person in ultimate charge of the operation, and who would have taken the decision to deploy the armed team was in a control room in Scotland Yard, and since the armed team lost radio contact when they went down to the tube would have taken the decision based purely on the incorrect identification. The armed team would have been told that this was confirmed as one of the people who the day before had tried to blow up the transport network, only two weeks after four others had done so, and you can start to see how the shooting of an unarmed, innocent man happened.
Ultimately it seems that if the senior officer at Scotland Yard gave the order, the armed response team merely followed their orders, and did their job correctly, so maybe you can’t blame the officers that pulled the trigger. However the officer that gave the order had a confirmed identification of a known terrorist from special branch officers on the ground, so again, based on the information at the time, they followed the policy. That leads back to the people who made the flawed identification, whilst following Menezes from his flat to the station. Certainly it seems that they feel like they will take the fall as the Panorama report reported evidence of doctored records, changing whether an identification was made – a serious allegation indeed.
However, what I found most concerning was the underlying principle of Operation Kratos – the so called ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy. The programme included a near farcical discussion between the reporter and a senior policeman, where he maintained that it was not a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy, but a ‘shoot-to-incapacitate’ policy. The reporter replied that the policy directed to shoot possible terrorists in the head, and surely that would lead to death. The policeman agreed that this was the directive, but that the shots to the head were to incapacitate – the fact that it was likely to kill the suspect didn’t mean that it was a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy. I thought the whole discussion was a barmy bit of spin.
It has been mentioned previously, that Operation Kratos is based on the practices of the Israeli Security Forces. However the programme highlighted that it differed in several respects, the biggest being that the Israeli’s are not allowed to shoot a suspect unless they have seen the bomb, in London, that is not the case, it was confirmed by one of the policemen interviewed that the policy allows the police to shoot a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion, even if there is no sign of a bomb at all.
Ultimately I think that whatever happens, the police will loose. Quite apart from the evidence of tampering that has come to light already, if nobody is prosecuted, then the whole investigation will be seen as a whitewash. However equally it seems that if the order was given, then the officers were only following the policy, it would seem that all the police involved were trying to do their jobs, and genuinely believed that Menezes was a terrorist. In that situation it seems that whilst nobody could be prosecuted, more senior people in the police force would find themselves out of a job. But if the team that pulled the trigger are prosecuted, as the family of Menezes would like, that could cause major problems, and as has been threatened before, possibly a walk-out of armed officers. Whichever way you look at it, there doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory conclusion at all.
I find it very sad that we remember the name of Jean Charles de Menezes and can not name one of the 50 people killed in the tube train bombs.
We as a country have our priorities mixed up.
I have no problem with a shoot to kill policy as long as it’s simple, clear and legal. “Fit for Purpose” … what does that mean? I’m glad that the IPCC have decided to have a full investigate a point the Panarama program glossed right over.
I disagree, I think the reason why people remember Jean Charles de Menezes is precisely because he didn’t die in the tube train bombs, and the reason for the concern is precisely because many people are concerned about the priorities that the Menezes incident seems to show.
He was someone who had the misfortune to live in the same block of flats as one of the terrorists, and use the tube to go to work, and for those reasons he was shot. Bear in mind that prior to 22nd July there was no official acknowledgement that Operation Kratos even existed. Just think about it for a moment, you could be walking down the street, sat on a train, in a restaurant or wherever, going about your legal business, and be shot for no more reason than the Police have made a mistaken identification.
To a member of the general public, not only did they now have the concern that terrorist suicide bombers were blowing up trains, they also had the realisation that without provocation, warning or challenge you could be shot by the police.
What has followed has only made things worse, we’ve gone from stories of Menezes leaping the barrier wearing a winter coat with visible wires, to the reality that he did nothing out of the ordinary. There is now evidence that Police have been doctoring their records, and questions over the apparent problems with CCTV.
I have no problem with, as you say, a clear, simple and legal policy, which, as with the original Israeli model allows for the shooting of suicide bombers. But what is fundamental is that in Israel, they are shooting because the bomber presents a clear and present danger – they can see the bomb, and the commander on the ground decides that they pose a threat that can only be dealt with by shooting the bomber.
The current UK policy, which was put together in secret, allows Police to shoot an unarmed and totally innocent man without provocation, evidence of a bomb or even a verbal challenge. The person that makes the final decision is apparently in a control room in Scotland Yard. To me, a change that is this fundamental, at the very least should have been discussed in parliament, as it changes, in a very significant way the whole relationship between police and public.
I beg to differ. With most suicide bomber you can’t see a bomb hence why this terror tactic is so successful.
The problem is how do you defend against suicide bombers? For the man on the ground it is a split second judgement call, a suspect is going near a potiential target. What do you do? Wait for instructions or prevent the suspect from proceeding?
What I find most frighting about the Jean Charles de Menezes case is how very few real facts have come to light. As there are so little in the public domain how can anyone really build an accurate picture of what really happened. Would you go to a judge and jury with what was shown in the Panarama programme?
I agree about the Panorama programme – the programme was based on the leaks from the IPCC report that is currently with the CPS. However, if you put aside the specifics of the Menezes case, the programme did confirm the Operation Kratos policy, and also highlighted the differences between Kratos, and the Israeli policy on which it was based.
I take your point about the bomb being hidden, but I think you have to ask why it is that the Israeli rules of engagement are that they can only shoot if they can see the bomb. If you go into an encounter assuming that the suspect will have a hidden bomb that they could detonate if they are challenged you are left with a difficult quandary of how you differentiate between a real bomber and an innocent member of the public?