Hooray for the jury

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

Back in July, 2005, in the wake of our 7/7 London bombings (which left 52 dead), our police shot dead an innocent Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes on the London Underground. They mistakenly believed that he was an Arab terrorist. Well, these dagos all look the same don't they?

I suppose it was a genuine mistake at a time of great tension but it wasn't just one shot. They fired 7 dum-dum bullets into his head which seems reminiscent of Chicago gangsters and is certainly excessive. They were right behind him for ages when he caught one bus and then another and later at the station, on the escalator and then on the platform but at no time was there a sign of them ever having warned him. Sure, I appreciate the need for a 'shoot to kill' policy in extremis but these coppers presumably had kevlar vests and they could have taken him at any time.

Three years on there has been an inquest and you won't be surprised to learn that it has cost £6 million, it included 7 QC's who only get paid '000's per hour and in all that time the court only sat for 42 days. Idle bastards.

The coroner in the later stages of the trial forbade the jury from returning a verdict of 'unlawful killing': he also forbade the jury from giving a 'narrative verdict' which meant they would have no opportunity to explain their conclusion. So it finished with the jury, after 7 days deliberation, returning an open verdict which basically means that they in law at least could not reach a clear cut conclusion. Now this often really does mean they cannot make their minds up but in this case, I suspect they could not say what they really wanted to say.

The judge then asked them a series of questions and their answers made it pretty clear about the way they felt. Basically, it was that the police bungled it and as witnesses they were liars. So in the end, the jury got its point across. Good for them.