News Feed: Recent media coverage from 'News Now'
Jean Charles de Menezes: August 2007
On August 2, the Independent Police Complaints Commission published a report of their investigation into a complaint made by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes concerning information released by the MPS immediately following the shooting. [IPCC Stockwell 2 Report]
CPCG for Lambeth Media Release
LAMBETH CALLS FOR HMIC REVIEW OF SENIOR MET COMMAND
Following the release today of the Independent Police Complaints Commission report ‘Stockwell 2’ (into the handling of information by the MPS following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes), the Community Police Consultative Group for Lambeth and the Latin Front are calling for an urgent review by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary of the systems, procedures and culture of the MPS’s senior command team.
Following the bombings on 7/7 and the unsuccessful bombing attempts of 21/7, we would expect the MPS to be at it’s most resilient, especially at its highest levels.
Following the tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the report tells us that it became immediately clear that he did not have a bomb on him, sometime shortly after 10:06 am. At that point the key question became:
Had an entirely innocent man been shot or, alternatively, had a terrorist unnecessarily been shot, thereby destroying the best source of intelligence which the MPS was likely to be able to access?
It would be expected that this would have exercised the senior command and been the constant subject of communications between them.
It is clear from the report that by early afternoon the balance of evidence was moving rapidly to indicate that an innocent man had been shot. It takes us to the limits of credulity that this was not communicated to the Commissioner and indeed that AC Andy Hayman, who was aware of this, was present at the televised afternoon press conference at which the Commissioner continued to reiterate a misleading and inaccurate version of events.
The report documents continuing failures and lack of clarity in communication as well as inadaquate record keeping of meetings.
The report does not address (nor could it) the continuing disfunction within the senior command at New Scotland Yard during the course of the Stockwell 2 investigation, with briefings, counter briefings and leaks emerging from New Scotland Yard on an almost weekly basis.
Taken together these are corrosive not only to community trust and confidence, especially within the Latin American community, but doubtless also amongst the many thousands of men and women serving within the MPS, doing their best to keep London Safe.
This erosion of trust must be addressed quickly. Any further review should not be another two-year caravan, which itself is damaging to the confidence and operational effectiveness of the MPS.
For that reason we call upon Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary to thoroughly review the senior command structures, procedures and cultures. The Inspector should be able to call on the resources of the Home Office (including the Police Standards Unit) as well as having an independent community input.
The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has placed itself in an ambiguous position in respect of Stockwell 2, and for that reason we shall argue that the Review should report directly to the Home Affairs Select Committee in open session.
Two other issues are of concern:
There have been reports that the IPCC’s report has been modified under threat of Judicial Review from three officers referred to in the report. We shall be seeking clarification from the IPCC on this issue.
There have also been reports that this challenge, and threat of Judicial Review, had ‘the backing’ of the MPA. We have asked for clarification of this from the MPA. In our view it would be wholly inappropriate for the MPA, as the disciplinary authority to whom this report is directed, to in any way seek to influence its content.
/ENDS
Correspondence between Len Duvall (Chair, Metropolitan Police Authority) and Anna Tapsell (Chair, CPCG for Lambeth)
Following the publication of a letter in the Evening Standard newspaper, in which Anna Tapsell inappropriately used the word 'dishonest' in respect of the MPA's involvement in the events of 22 July 2005, the following letters were exchanged.
Letter from Len Duvall to Anna Tapsell:
" Anna Tapsell
Chair – CPCG Lambeth
6 August 2007
Dear Ms Tapsell
Your letter to the Evening Standard about the Stockwell Two Report, published by them on Friday, was inaccurate and gravely mistaken.
I respect the right of individuals and groups – even groups wholly funded by the MPA – to be robustly critical of the Authority, and if necessary of me as Chair, where the facts justify it.
In the present case you accuse me of taking part in decisions to mislead the public. If you read the IPCC Report you will find not a shred of support for that assertion, and in fact paragraph 24.2 specifically states that the IPCC do not criticise me or any other person (apart from AC Hayman) who attended the meeting at Scotland Yard on 22 July 2005. You also suggest that the MPA has “been exposed” as incompetent and dishonest, clearly suggesting to a reader that that is what the IPCC have found. That is an untruth, and you have no basis whatsoever to justify your remark.
So I do not recognize your letter as legitimate criticism. It is a gross distortion, and defamatory.
You signed the letter to the Standard as Chair of Lambeth CPCG, although I understand that the CPCG Executive did not approve it. As it purported to be a letter on behalf of the CPCG, I am copying this reply to the CPCG Executive.
The MPA has throughout the past seven years, worked hard on behalf of Londoners to hold the Met rigorously to account for its actions and to scrutinise it at every level, while supporting its 50,000 police officers and staff to deliver a service that is effective, efficient and fair. We have made the Met more accountable to the people of London than it has ever been before. The work of the Authority across the range of policing issues of importance to Londoners - from stop and search to gun crime to counter terrorism community engagement - has led to changes being made that improve policing.
It is a great pity that you did not trouble to check any of your facts before writing your polemic, and that by writing as you have, you have chosen to mislead the public as to the truth and to identify the CPCG with your ill judged comments. I expect an apology. I trust you will not repeat any of your unjust and defamatory allegations.
Yours sincerely
Len Duvall OBE, AM
Chair, Metropolitan Police Authority"
Letter from Anna Tapsell to Len Duvall:
10th August 2007
Dear Len Duvall,
Thank you for your letter which was hand delivered to my home on 6th August. I understand that your letter was published on the MPA website with my full home address. Fortunately, this was seen by a CPCG colleague and quickly removed by MPA staff, for which I thank them.
I have carefully re-read the Stockwell 2 Report and fully acknowledge that it makes no suggestion whatsoever that either you or the MPA as a whole were dishonest. I was quite wrong to include that term in my letter to the Evening Standard and I apologise unreservedly.
The Stockwell 2 Report reflects, in my view and that of many others, an account of appalling disfunctionality at the heart of the MPS in a period of national crisis. That is very disturbing to those of us who have an innate respect for the constabulary and who rely on the Metropolitan Police Authority to ensure that Londoners have senior officers of the highest quality. As the body accountable for the Metropolitan Police the Authority needs, in my view, to question its objectivity in this regard.
Not all of us who are elected or appointed to public office will have to face a situation such as that which pertained in July 2005 when, at a time of heightened security, a person is shot seven times in the head, after he has been followed from his home, onto the street, aboard a bus, into an underground station and down onto a train. That having happened, one would expect the MPA to immediately be asking the same questions as people on the streets in Lambeth at the time: have they got the right man and why did they have to kill him? These questions would surely involve detailed questioning of officers about his form of dress and his demeanour prior to the shooting, yet wrong information about both those things continued to be given out to the public over 24 hours later, well after the time when our MPA representatives had attended a meeting at which the form of the information to be put into the public domain was agreed.
For those of us who are close to the MPA and who have admired its efforts to improve the accountability of our police force to Londoners, the Stockwell 2 Report comes as a shock. Particularly when considered with the earlier decisions by the MPA to request the Attorney General to quash the CPS’s decision to prosecute the Commissioner’s office under the Health and Safety legislation and later, it’s decision to offer public funds in support of a Judicial Review by police officers that caused the Stockwell 2 Report to be delayed then amended. It is not surprising therefore if some of us question whether the MPA has lost its way on this matter.
My criticism, and I take personal responsibility for my views, is not about the body of the work performed by the MPA over the last few years nor with Lambeth’s link member who is diligent in his duties. Our local police have worked very hard in Lambeth to improve community confidence and consequently their effectiveness. Immediately following the London bombings and the events of 22nd July, our borough commander and his officers were out on the street, into the churches and mosques and at all our meeting places, calming, reassuring and, above all, listening to us. They deserve the very best from the MPA and the MPS leaders and so do all Londoners.
In your letter to The Guardian of August 4th you say that you understand why the family of John Charles de Menezes will never be satisfied with the explanations for his killing. You are right. However, you fail to demonstrate an understanding of why so many Londoners now feel anxious about the Commissioner’s ability to inspire the confidence of his senior officers or why Londoners from ethnic backgrounds find the account of casual, and wildly erroneous, references to the ethnicity of Jean Charles de Menezes a chilling reminder of institutional racism. .
You are completely justified in calling me to book for using the term ‘dishonest’ when referring to you or the MPA and I again apologise for the hurt I may have caused. But there are times when critical friends have their uses. I genuinely believe that the remaining content of my letter, which I have set out more clearly here, is widely held and I would be failing if I did not relay it to you. Your duty is onerous, but you would, I know, not wish to appear beyond criticism.
I expect that you shall publish this letter on the MPA website alongside your own. I shall ask for CPCG to post both letters, but not the original Evening Standard letter, on its website from this weekend and to distribute to its contacts. I hope this will mitigate any damage done to your reputation.
Yours sincerely,
Anna Tapsell
Jean Charles de Menezes - July 2006
Following the announcement of the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) decision not to bring charges against any of the officers involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, CPCG and the Latin Front jointly called a public meeting Thursday 20th July, at Lambeth Accord, 336, Brixton Road.
The Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and DAC Rose Fitzpatrick from NSY addressed the meeting. Regretably, the Crown Prosecution Service declined an invitation to attend.
Read CPS, IPCC and CPCG for Lambeth media releases here.
Jean Charles de Menezes - February 2006
[Minutes of CPCG's February 2006 meeting, which was addressed by Nick Hardwick, are available here ]
Jean Charles de Menezes - September 2005
[Minutes of CPCG's 'Lambeth United' meeting (September 2005), to which Nick Hardwick (Chair, IPCC) and Commander Bob Broadhurst (MPS) contributed, are available here]
Jean Charles de Menezes - IPCC Inquiry
Community Reference Group
Shortly after the start of their inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, in response to community representations, the Independent Police Complaints Commission invited four organisations to each provide a representive to form a 'Community Reference Group'.
The four organisations are:
- The Latin Front
- Muslim Safety Forum
- Refugee Council
- CPCG for Lambeth
Purpose
The Group's purpose if to provide an independent community perspective to the issues under investigation, advising the Commission on community concerns in order to enhance the quality of the investigation.
Process
All four organisations are well networked within their respective communties and shall work to gather and reflect community concerns through those networks. Additionally, anyone can communicate their particular concerns using the feedback form below.
All feedback will be treated in confidence and contact details will not be passed on to the IPCC, the police or any third party. Feedback will be acknowledged, but generally the Reference Group will not enter into email correspondence. This is both because members of the Reference Group are volunteers with limits on their time, but also to avoid any risk of prejudicing the inquiry.
(If you would like to be kept up to date with general information from any of the four organisations listed, please click 'Yes' to 'Please send information' and indicate in your comment from which organisation you would like to hear.)
| 
