Earlier this month, an Old Bailey jury found that the failings of Met officers breached an obligation on public bodies under the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 in that it failed to reduce risks to the safety of employees and the public. It was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs.
The trial highlighted a catalogue of errors by police:
- surveillance officers incorrectly identified de Menezes as the failed bomber who lived in the same block of flats;
- senior officers deviated from the agreed plan on how to deal with the incident; and
- firearms teams were poorly briefed and in the wrong locations.
IIRSM Member John Hill MIIRSM has worked in the health and safety industry for over 20 years, and has been somewhat taken aback at the “alacrity” with which the CPS decided that the de Menezes killing was a health and safety offence.
“It seems clear that there has been a terrible hash made, the result of which was the death of an innocent man.
“This, in my opinion, was the result of Prime Ministerial involvement when the last PM announced that he was to authorise "summary powers" for the police, which in some circumstances would justify a "shoot to kill" policy.
“I am outraged that the health and safety law which I have been working to enforce for a long period of years should have been used as a political tool in order to avoid the uproar which would no doubt have erupted during the trial of police officers (and their superiors), for murder in a public place. It is clear that the decision to use H&S law was taken as a political way out to save political embarrassment.
“Any law, including H&S law was not designed to prevent embarrassment to authority, but to ensure justice! The fact that EU law was also ignored makes the event even worse. For how can anyone have trust in the judicial system when (in my opinion), it was so blatantly misused in this case?”
Many IIRSM members agreed with John, including Brian Cowan MIIRSM. He spent 25 years in the armed forces and has been a safety professional of 14 years. Brian admits he has mixed feelings on the case.
“I know that the only way to stop a suicide bomber is to shoot him (or her) in the head and keep doing it until they lay down and become still. This may seem harsh but I assure you it is true. If the Met had failed to take this action and de Menezes had indeed been a bomber the resultant loss of life was potentially enormous.”
Brian told me that he does recognise that the use of health and safety law and the subsequent successful prosecution proves beyond doubt that the letter of law was considered and the offence proven.
“My end feeling is one of sadness,” continues Brian. “I wish that I could believe that the people who brought this prosecution remembered that policing and soldiering are not the same as working in a warehouse or on a construction site. Unfortunately I don't believe that.”
Another member who wrote to me expressing their feelings on the case was Gordon Hartley FIIRSM. He finds it quite unacceptable that the Met can shoot a person seven times in the head. “What's the matter with shooting to disable?” he asks. “He should be paid off like the England Manager for doing a rubbish job!”
So, should the officers have simply shot to disable, or were they right in their actions? We want to hear from you. Please post your comments and get your voice heard.
To return to HealthandSafetyProfessional.co.uk, click here.
