This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7023955.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Menezes police 'poorly briefed' Menezes police 'poorly briefed'
(about 4 hours later)
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.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 the Brazilian died because of "obvious confusion" between police tracking him in 2005. 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.Clare Montgomery, prosecuting, said commanders did "too little, much, much too late" to brief armed officers.
But the Met's defence lawyer said the prosecution had misunderstood "the whole situation". 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.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 there was evidence that the firearms teams assumed that whoever was followed would be their target. 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.
She said this meant that as they approached Mr de Menezes in the Tube carriage at Stockwell station on 22 July, they were prepared to shoot because of the risk they understood him to pose. 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 the identity of Jean Charles de Menezes. 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''Up for it'
On the opening day of the trial, the jury heard that 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. 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.
All that stood between London and the bombers thought to be at 21 Scotia Road were the untrained and sometimes unarmed surveillance officers Clare Montgomery, prosecuting All that stood between London and the bombers thought to be at 21 Scotia Road were the untrained and sometimes unarmed surveillance officers Clare Montgomery,prosecuting
But the court was told that when Mr de Menezes set off the following morning, surveillance officers could not confirm if he was their target or simply an innocent commuter. 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 separately told they should expect to find a suspect bomber "up for it" and would need to deploy "unusual tactics", lawyers said. 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.
The court heard that officers understood the suspect, once identified and followed, had to be stopped "at any cost" from entering the public transport system. 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.
And they took this briefing to mean they would need to consider killing the suspect on sight, rather than use standard tactics to wound or corner a suspect.
Ms Montgomery told the court that despite a clear strategy having been decided by a Scotland Yard commander and written up clearly on the operations room's white board, this was not properly passed on to either the surveillance or firearms teams.
The firearms officers appeared to be even more in the dark because of a "simply inexplicable" four-hour delay between the plan being launched and their teams reaching the location, she said.
"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."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 they should do if forced to "contain" the suspect, "all he got was a shrug of the shoulders", she said. 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.
'Head bobbing' 'Prosecution wrong'
Ms Montgomery said that such was the confusion in the station that one firearms officer, codenamed William, chased the Tube driver into the tunnel. But in his opening defence statement, Ronald Thwaites QC said the death was a serious mistake - but not a crime.
"He went after him and shouted 'armed police'. He put a light on and could see his head bobbing about. He had his finger on the trigger," Ms Montgomery told the court. The prosecution have started with the benefit of hindsight - and hindsight turns everyone into a brilliant problem solver Ronald Thwaites QC,Defending
"The figure moved out and put his hands up. The driver explained he had nearly electrocuted himself and would never drive again." 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.
In his opening defence statement Ronald Thwaites QC said death was a serious mistake, but not a crime. "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.
The prosecution have started with the benefit of hindsight - and hindsight turns everyone into a brilliant problem solver Ronald Thwaites QC
He described the prosecution case as relying on the benefit of hindsight.
The reality, he said, was that police chasing the 21 July suicide bombers were facing unprecedented challenges.
The prosecution completely failed to understand these challenges, Mr Thwaites said.
"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.
"It would have the effect of putting handcuffs on the police and seriously impede their effectiveness in combating serious crime.""It would have the effect of putting handcuffs on the police and seriously impede their effectiveness in combating serious crime."
Crisis situation 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 in the days after the 7 July suicide bombings police were facing an unprecedented threat to London. Mr Thwaites said this meant police had only one option - to devise "preliminary" tactics and allow officers to use their judgement as events unfolded.
Scotland Yard's terrorism hotline had received 3,900 tip-offs in a "rapidly developing" picture, he added. 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.
This meant that when commanders had linked the bombers to the block of flats, the very best they could have done had been to outline "preliminary" tactics rather than fixed rules of how to apprehend such dangerous people, said Mr Thwaites. He asked: "How can the police be criticised for their lack of certainty about the identification of Mr de Menezes?"
"The prosecution have misconstrued the whole situation and misunderstood it. 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." "The prosecution have started with the benefit of hindsight - and hindsight turns everyone into a brilliant problem solver," he said.
Unpredictable actions "A serious mistake was made in shooting him. But not every mistake is a crime."
Mr Thwaites said none of the commanders, surveillance teams and armed units could have predicted how a potential suicide bomber would act.
So when Mr de Menezes had been labelled a suspect, officers had feared an immediate arrest could alert other bombers still inside, leading them to blow up the entire block.
"A serious mistake was made in shooting him," said Mr Thwaites. "But not every mistake is a crime."
The case continues.The case continues.