Crown Prosecution Service Press Release - 3rd Oct 2006
NOTE: Italicised sentences and bracketed numbers refer to points in the following document to this, the Murden family response to this press release.
DPP decides no charges following death of Simon Murden
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, QC, has decided that no officers from Humberside Police should face any criminal charges over the death of Simon Murden, who was shot dead on the A63 near Hull in March, 2005.
Mr Macdonald said: "First of all, I would like to express my condolences to Simon Murden's family for their terrible loss. This case is of the utmost gravity and sensitivity(1), principally to Simon's bereaved family but also, of course, to the officers who were investigated, to police officers more widely, and to the public at large. I have given every aspect of the case, and all the available relevant evidence, the most careful consideration before reaching my decision.
"At the time that this tragic event occurred, Simon was acting in an unpredictable manner, carrying a form of weaponry(2) that was capable of inflicting fatal injuries, and moving determinedly(3) towards an area where there were members of the public(4). Even after initial baton rounds(5) were fired, it was clear that he was determined to carry on towards the public(6). The officers who shot him have said that they honestly and genuinely believed(7) that in those circumstances, force was necessary to protect themselves(8) and others from lethal harm.
"I have seen the items that Simon was carrying and, having seen those items, I do not believe that the prosecution could disprove the officers' assertions that they honestly and genuinely believed them to pose a real danger(9) and that it was necessary for them to attempt to stop Simon by the use of baton rounds.
"Having failed to stop him with the baton rounds(10), the threat remained the same(11). I can only conclude that, in those circumstances, their resort to the use of firearms was reasonable in the context of the law of self-defence(12).
"It follows from this that I do not believe that the prosecution could satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the officers were not lawfully acting in defence of themselves and/or others. I am therefore led to the inevitable conclusion that there is not a realistic prospect of convicting either officer of a charge of murder, or any other offence(13)."
Notes to Editors
Simon Murden was killed on 22 March 2005. About 6am he left the family home in his father's van and was reported by other drivers driving the wrong way along the A63 dual carriageway near Hull. Alerted by a call from Simon Murden's father, armed police response vehicles were deployed. The van was in collision with another vehicle after which Simon was seen walking alongside the road by two police officers, who believed he was carrying actual, or potential, weapons. He was walking towards a petrol filling station where there were members of the public. The officers fired baton rounds, but he appeared to continue towards the filling station. He was shot and killed by a combination of bullets from the guns of the two officers.
A file of evidence was referred to the CPS on 9 January 2006 following an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission IPCC).
That file also considered the position of two other officers. The reviewing lawyer decided there was insufficient evidence against those officers for any criminal offence. The DPP agreed with that decision and did not review that aspect of the case further.
For further details, contact CPS Press Office on 020 7796 8180.
The Murden family reply to the C.P.S Press Release
It was with horror that we read in the papers the C.P.S. press release letter. In our opinion this letter was offensively duplicitous and full of emotive and dissembling language. This statement once again portrayed Simon as a ‘weapon wielding madman’, just one of the terrible descriptions that the police clearly leaked shortly after his shooting. This statement clearly puts all the blame on Simon and no responsibility on the police – it effectively misleads the public. In its broadest sense it re-assures the public that they can feel safe in their trust of the police. But for those who know beyond this text, you would fear to inform the police ever again about someone who is suffering a breakdown and who needs support and care.
We wish to take you through this document to indicate our severe criticism and anger over a hugely misleading press release:
‘Utmost gravity and sensitivity’ – understand this phrase in relation to us as a family and the officers – How do you think it relates to police officers more widely and public at large?
‘Carrying a form of weaponry capable of inflicting fatal injuries’ - emotive and . None of the swords could do that – 2 trained police officers with protective clothing– how could a young skinny man with his hands full ever have inflicted a fatal injury on either of them?
‘Determinedly’ (show by example-walk towards door) – emotive, further misleading.
‘Members of public’ – Where were they? About 150 yards away!
‘Initial baton rounds’ – hugely misleading (Perception is several) Fact: 2 rubber bullets – 1 of which missed – known fact that may be ineffective e.g. through leather jackets, etc. so why did they rely on that? (Taizers – Humberside police)
‘Clear that he was determined to carry on towards the public’. Misleading emotive and no proof. Did he say so? Did he show any aggressive signs with the swords? His intention was to get rid of them – the police certainly saw to that!
‘The officers…honestly and genuinely believed…real danger’ Emotive and misleading – of course they are going to say that – Can you swear that it’s honest and genuine?!! Carrying the 3 artefacts with no aggressive act before, made their claim to fear for their lives, untenable
‘Force necessary to protect themselves’ emotive and misleading – see point 2 – could have gone up and hit him with the butt of their gun and he would have gone down – could have rugby tackled him or strong armed him or at any rate held back and cordoned off his walking to area of garage forecourt. Policemen and women in any city centre on a Saturday night face drunken public with ‘lethal weapons’ in a much more crowded environment and they don’t use guns to protect themselves.
‘Seen the items…..do not believe….etc’ emotive, sensational, misleading and a lie. We know what those swords were, An ornamental sword from Mont St Michel bought by Simon when he was 12, a Touareg tourist sword still in its scabbard and a smaller African tourist sword – all of these swords came through customs with no question about them being a lethal weapons.
‘Having failed..’ duplicitous, misleading, emotive. One officer was re-loading his baton round gun – he didn’t think he had failed or hadn’t the time to reload! His colleague (presumably panicked) opened fire!
‘Threat remained the same’ – threat of what – that they were to be hacked to pieces – their heads would be chopped off – he would do this in one fell swoop to the 2 of them – and with which of the swords?!
‘Resort to the use of firearms reasonable in the context of self-defence’ Emotive and misleading – Reasonable – to fire at him 9 times? To cock and fire, and cock and fire, and cock and fire, and cock and fire over and over – and a further shot from the other officer – is ‘reasonable’! Unreasonable in any context.
Final paragraph – unfounded, callous and unbelievable – words fail us to describe what we think about these words which do not demonstrate justice in any form.