The Murden Family Response to the DPP Statement following the Inquest, April 2008
Our family are still in total and continuing shock that after 3½ years of patient waiting there is still no vindication, compensation, or accountability for Simon’s needless death.
The Inquest did nothing but reveal even more facts and evidence which confirmed our worst fears: that the Police have been protected from blame by a process of law which is at best misleading and at worst a cover up of their actions.
The early portrayal of Simon as an out of control, high on drugs, “Samurai” sword wielding aggressor, dangerous to the Police and Public, has not been given a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary the Inquest revealed and demonstrated facts which showed he was no threat to anyone had he been handled with any common degree of humanity and professionalism? Both were missing from those who engaged, confronted and assaulted him on that morning. This still requires accountability.
Having reviewed the “live notes” evidence of all key witnesses, it is glaringly apparent their testimony flies in the face of the explanation and description of the threat Simon gave to put the shooters “in fear of their lives” from his carrying of “the sword type weapons”. The facts showed this to be nonsense and destroys their credibility to a Public who generally have reacted to the local News items throughout the Inquest with incredulity that “they had to do it”.
This horror and distaste is further augmented by the clear evidence that Simon was shot with live rounds whilst he was still on the ground. Simon was given no chance of life after being hit with Baton rounds, which had further shocked and disorientated him, giving time for the Police to control his actions peacefully (stated by a witness who questioned why they didn’t). Their tunnel vision and cowardice and knee jerk reactions at best led to his manslaughter. To be shot 12 times in a space of approximately 20 seconds at most and then be told each of the 10 shots after the 2 Baton rounds was thought about and accountable was sheer falsity and the explanation of Simon’s ‘threat’ to justify this, a demonstrable fabrication. Both the Forensic Scientist and the unobstructed view witnesses do not in any way endorse the shooters descriptions of Simon’s demeanour and aggression. It was entirely the other way round.
We come here today to beg you to reconsider your original decision as to prosecution. The information that emerged at the Inquest produced a huge amount of evidence further to the written witness statements for this case still to be brought to a Criminal Court.
Clearly Mr. Smith, Mr. Waterman and Miss Judge’s original advice notes that “they were satisfied there was sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings” was more than confirmed to us, our Counsel, friends and the Press by the facts at the Inquest. Now that you have read Mr. Auty’s report and spoken with him, what still confirms your judgement against their advice?
We have read again the live note transcripts of C and D, the key witnesses and expert evidence, including Dr. Robinson’s forensic evidence. This has been a further very painful experience for us to again re-visit the graphic and horrific way in which our son and brother met his death. We have had to do this in order to again plead for justice for Simon and to present to you an informed and comprehensive overview of the events.
On re-reading all the key witness evidence we stress these findings: Mr. Brook, Mr. Wright, Mr.Quinn, Mr. Hepton, Mr. P. Welham, Mr. D. Welham, Mr. Johnson, Miss Walker, Mrs. Burkinshaw and Mrs. Brignall make no reference to a sword being raised. Miss Hopper, the only other key-witness, refers to a stick pointing downwards and being wafted.
It is important to note that the three women in the BP Garage were taken over to the Little Chef and asked questions by Humberside Police before they were interviewed by the IPCC. Jennifer Brignall, a major key witness who was closest to the action, made her statement to Humberside Police and not the IPCC. She was allowed to continue serving tea in the Little Chef which was the operations base for the Police on that day!
It is a major factor that all witnesses after the accident, including the Police video itself, endorse that Simon was not behaving in a threatening way and was not aggressive. The witness whose BMW car he got into spoke of him looking pale and tired but in no way threatening. Simon, as an ill, vulnerable, shocked, and ‘disconnected’, human being, was confronted and assaulted by those pointing guns at him. They screamed commands he couldn’t either hear or understand, he was not called by his name which at least one Officer admitted knowing. They established no backing off or attempt to establish any normal rapport, in fact admitted having no communication between each other or F and E before and during the confrontation, and he was shot dead in no more than 20 seconds!
In fact the précis of all that happened was “we shouted at him, he didn’t do what we said, so we shot him dead”.
There is a great deal in the “Live-note” content to which we could refer but are aware of the time constraint. Rather we will refer to one part of Officer C’s statement on pages 118-127 as an example of questionable testimony.
He speaks of a raised sword in Simon’s right hand, holding something in his left, dropping it, putting is left hand in his pocket, taking out a mobile phone, putting it to his ear, replacing it in his pocket, all before he shot him. Officer D did not see any of this! (They knew about the mobile phone in his pocket after he was dead !).
The irrefutable evidence of Dr. Robinson, the Forensic Scientist, that the swords which he was “cradling”, a phrase used a number of times by key witnesses, were clearly shot through with bullets and the “silver sword” had lead particles on it also, demonstrating it was in close proximity to the others.
This forensic evidence contradicts C and D’s account that the sword was being waved before the first live round from the carbine was fired.
Dr. Robinson’s evidence implied that all three swords were strapped together because the bullet hole in the strap corresponded with a hole through the two swords when the strap was under tension and not in immediate contact with the two swords. This indicated the third sword Simon was supposed to be waving about was strapped to the other two at the time when one shot passed through them. The closest civilian witness Mrs. Brignall, in the Little Chef said she never saw a sword being waved. All witnesses saw the 3 swords as one item and this appeared to be the case on the Police video.
We know that there were 9 shots fired by Officer C, 5 were found to have fatally wounded him at the Post Mortem, 4 were never found. Eyewitnesses speak of the grass flying up around Simon’s legs. Officer C states that Simon was only 10 feet away from him. Officer C was using a holographic site, denies double tapping, but “assessed each and every shot”. For an experienced fire-arms officer this series of events indicates to us excessive panic during which he misses a close target, the bullets only going into the ground. This indicates that Simon could not have been fully standing at the time otherwise they would have hit the Little Chef directly behind him!
Simon’s African portfolio, full of his songs and thoughts, was held much higher up than C and D claimed. Thus baton rounds did not strike the portfolio but the abdomen and groin. (Injuries noted by Shorrocks at the Post Mortem). This contradicted C and D’s evidence that the portfolio was somehow preventing the batons having their expected stopping power. Eye witnesses on the garage fore-court claim to have seen Simon go down following the firing of baton rounds and further shots being fired whilst Simon was still on the ground trying to get up!
All witnesses say Simon was on the ground when the pistol shot and the final three shots from the carbine were fired. The explanations given by the Officers for those final shots totally lack credibility including the ludicrous “Tuller Drill” rationalisation!
C and D were back at work a week after the shooting! They admit to regularly talking to each other then and of course had a period of 3 months in which to get their story together! Our meeting with Mr. Nick Hardwick, the head of the IPCC in October 2006 revealed that the IPCC and the Home Office were exploring and arguing for the issue of the ‘burden of proof’ to be the same for the Police as the Public. We also spoke about the ongoing discussion and argument with the Police Federation about ‘immediate post event interviews’ to be done with Officers independently. The subject of the recent Judicial Review brought by Mr. Saunder’s sister. None of these issues around the ’protection of the Police’ is resolved 3½ years later!
It is our opinion, though a value judgement, that the calibre of all the Police personnel and Officers, apart from the Gold Commander, were lacking in fundamental abilities to assess and take responsible, professional action. In some cases this led to behaviour and instructions which took ‘the threat’ to a level higher than was necessary, leading to the seeming panic reactions from Officers C and D.
We believe the Police did not do all they ought to have done reasonably to resolve these events peacefully to avoid the risk of death of a person in a special population group.
We know the following facts that emerged at the Inquest about the training of the Humberside Police Force:
-
A total lack of training of fire-arms Officers by Psychiatrists and Psychologists on the resolution of incidents involving vulnerable persons suffering psychotic conditions and breakdown and the essential difference between psychosis and psychopathy. The highly important use of a vulnerable person’s name needed to be emphasised in such training as confirmed by Dr. Rix, the Forensic Psychiatrist.
-
Lack of accredited psychological profiling of authorised FO’s to assess their suitability for fire-arms duties prior to commencement of basic fire-arms training and at regular intervals thereafter. Not done before March 2005.
-
Lack of formal training of FO’s to ensure that information given by the control room is accurately recorded on control logs (e.g. Moreton’s use of the word “handgun”)
-
Lack of formal training of all control room staff on vulnerable persons (e.g. Gillian Rack had no knowledge of Special Population Groups) and the fundamental importance of the use of a person’s name.
-
Lack of formal training of control room staff on the strict formalities of firearms Authorisation. (Stuart Bradley’s use of the words “immediate authorisation”).
Failure to harmonise control logs in the Northern Command centre (Gillian Rack did not enter log 69 information onto log 80).
We wish to stress again that all the Professional people, including very senior members of the IPCC, and all those who worked closely with the investigation, plus your colleagues in the legal Profession, believe strongly that this case should have gone to the Criminal Court. What has now been confirmed is that an Inquest was not the place to reveal the full truth.
Thus we want to stress our original opinion that an Inquest has ‘no teeth’ in matters as serious as these. If the Police are going to be free to shoot to kill they should be subject to a Court of Law like everyone else.
The shooting of Simon and other cases currently in the Public eye, e.g. the De Menenzes case, the recent Saunder’s case, seem to give justification for the Police ‘to shoot whom they like when they like and to use as many bullets and as much force as they like!’ All they have to do is trot out the mantra, “we were in fear of our lives”, in order to erect an impregnable defence of self-defence with relative ease which is very hard to overturn.
After a 6 week Inquest which included a huge amount of evidence, the Jury comprising 8 men and 3 women, were finally presented with two days of summary by the Coroner. An Inquest does not allow opportunity for arguments to be presented by Counsel in order to present the Jury with the variety of arguments. The average member of the Public generally believes, or still wants to believe, that the Police are to be trusted. We know that the narrative verdict, a highly complicated document, which many of us found hard to understand, prevented the Jury from reaching any other decision, and that the Police were allowed to “do it” because the APCO guidelines say they can!
In your letter to us on October 6th. 2006 you conclude by accepting you cannot know the pain of losing Simon in such a way.
Our feelings of pain and loss are now made even more acute by the experience of the Inquest.
The Humberside Police were not made accountable for their many mistakes during an episode that began in haste and was carried out in haste and resulted in an unnecessary and disproportionate use of force. That accountability and the lack of transparency also meant the IPCC were unable to issue any disciplinary proceedings against them.
Simon’s Human Rights, his right to life and justice, were and continue to be totally disregarded. For this we hold you, Mr. McDonald, responsible. We are sure you have a conscience as well as Professionalism and, as a former defence Lawyer involved with Human Rights, you must see this case as a ‘failure to see justice prevail’.
We are left with even more facts that the Police were grossly negligent in respect of a proportionate response .We are left with them still smearing Simon’s good character as causing his own death by his breakdown. This is not so and we will never give in to leave this as the last word on the matter.
The outmoded and inadequate Inquest system was not the place to hear this case. An adversarial Court, where all the facts came to light and could be shown clearly, would have allowed the transparency and accountability of the Police and where there was significantly more chance that Justice would have been seen to be done.
At the end of the Inquest, with the Jury absent, much discussion occurred between Counsel and the Coroner about the legal process. Here is a vital quote from Mr. Campbell, Counsel for the Coroner, Mr. Saul:
“The justification for the shots was of a “sword being wielded”.
“Armed but not acting in a threatening manner does not justify the use of shots.”
The need to neutralise the threat was based on an “uplifted sword”.
“If there was not an uplifted sword what was the threat?”