Another day of travelling, but one thing stuck in my mind about the DeMenenzes inquest, one of the parts of the leading questions the fuzz friendly coroner inflicted on the jurors.
4) Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes?
e) The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers. Jury: No
I mean really, not reaching or anything was old coroner ‘Sir’ Michael Wright. ‘Sir’ as in loyal & faithful services to the crown, you dig? Anyway together with that was this frankly hilarious addendum to The Independent story-
John Cooper, a criminal law expert at chambers in 25 Bedford Row, London, said prosecutions against police officers for perjury are rare, writes Robert Verkaik, Law Editor. “Just because a jury disbelieves the evidence of the police it does not follow they think the officer is lying. If there were to be a perjury trial every time the jury rejected police evidence, the system would break down.” But if the coroner considers there is evidence that a witness has lied to frustrate the course of justice, he may refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The family can ask the CPS to review the evidence. As a last resort the family can bring a private prosecution.
Yes heaven forfend the system gets in trouble, much better the police can lie with impunity, that way everyone keeps their nice little earners as justice rolls along.