Menezes police 'poorly briefed'

[TriWooOx]

Quote:Firearms officers who shot Jean Charles de Menezes thought he had to be stopped "at any cost" because they were not properly briefed, a court has heard.

An Old Bailey jury heard he died on a Tube because of "obvious confusion" between police tracking him in 2005.

Clare Montgomery, prosecuting, said commanders did "too little, much, much too late" to brief armed officers.

But the Met's defence said prosecutors were describing events in "near ignorance" of how police operate.

The Metropolitan Police denies breaking health and safety laws when it mistook Mr de Menezes for a suicide bomber.

Completing the prosecution's opening statement in the unprecedented trial, Ms Montgomery said the firearms teams assumed that whoever was followed from a stake-out would be their target.

As they later rushed towards Mr de Menezes sitting in a Tube carriage at Stockwell station on 22 July they were prepared to shoot because they believed by then he was a suicide bomber.

In fact, she told the court, inconsistent and unconfirmed reports, combined with confusion in the control room, meant that nobody knew if the Brazilian was the suspect or not.

'Up for it'

Police investigating the failed suicide attacks of 21 July had linked one of the bombers, Hussain Osman, to the same block of flats where Mr de Menezes lived.

But the court heard that when Mr de Menezes left his home, surveillance officers could not confirm if he was their target or an innocent commuter.

At the same time, firearms officers had been told to prepare to confront a bomber "up for it". Officers took this briefing to mean they would need to prepare to shoot dead the suspect to stop him "at all costs" from entering the London Underground network.

But at this point the firearms officers were four hours late to the operation, she said, leading to confusion over who was in charge in the critical moments before the shooting.

"There was obvious confusion from the outset between the three groups of officers - those in the operations room, the surveillance officers and the firearms officers," said Ms Montgomery.

When one of the surveillance officers tried to clarify what to do if required to "contain" the suspect "all he got was a shrug of the shoulders", she said.

'Prosecution wrong'

But in his opening defence statement, Ronald Thwaites QC said the death was a serious mistake - but not a crime.

He said the prosecution relied upon the benefit of hindsight and completely failed to appreciate the unprecedented challenges that police faced during the suicide attacks of July 2005.

"The prosecution are attempting to dictate to the police how they should be doing their job and they are doing so from a position of near ignorance," he said.

"It would have the effect of putting handcuffs on the police and seriously impede their effectiveness in combating serious crime."

Commanders feared that the 21 July bombers could blow themselves up in a block of flats if cornered by police - just like terrorists who struck Madrid in 2004.

Mr Thwaites said this meant police had only one option - to devise "preliminary" tactics and allow officers to use their judgement as events unfolded.

He attacked the prosecution's case that the officers should have done more to establish if Mr de Menezes was the bomber by showing a composite image to the jury of the Brazilian and Osman following his eventual arrest.

He asked: "How can the police be criticised for their lack of certainty about the identification of Mr de Menezes?"

Mr Thwaites said all facets of the prosecution case demonstrated their lack of understanding of police procedure in the middle of a crisis.

"The prosecution have started with the benefit of hindsight - and hindsight turns everyone into a brilliant problem solver," he said.

"A serious mistake was made in shooting him. But not every mistake is a crime."

The case continues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7023955.stm

[rsol]

"The prosecution are attempting to dictate to the police how they should be doing their job and they are doing so from a position of near ignorance," he said.

"It would have the effect of putting handcuffs on the police and seriously impede their effectiveness in combating serious crime."

These are two sentences.

You dont know what you are on about and if we had less people looking down our backs and putting procedures in the way we could have done our job better. conclusion? throw more money at us and give up some more "Rights" so we can keep you all safe and this wont happen again.