Murden family letter to Sir Ken McDonald - January 2010
Dear Mr. McDonald,
We began this letter before Christmas; the pain of writing it has delayed it’s completion. We were belatedly told about, and subsequently read, the article in the Times of October 27th and we know you have also been aired on Radio 4 expressing the same views.
We have read and re-read the 4 paragraphs in which you spoke about the murder of Simon and the decision not to prosecute. We were horrified and deeply hurt that you used his death to explain away the issue about power and questionable decisions. The explanation in it gave no comfort for bearing the constant pain of his demonstrably needless death at the hands of the State. It felt to us as an attempt to rationalise and expiate your conscience about the whole terrible event.
Your explanation about Simon’s behaviour was completely wrong. He was NOT "striding down the slip road" ( all witnesses said he was walking calmly, even thumbing a lift and looked pale and shocked ).He was NOT "holding a collection of knives" (he was carrying a tied and bundled together collection of toy sword artefacts) even "in the grip of a psychotic episode" seems to compound the myth that he was an aggressive, out of control person , a danger to police and public. Reports from the public that he had a gun was the reason the Firearmas Officers were called out.
You know the Inquest revealed that the Humberside Police and those officers were inept, incompetent and ignorant, especially in dealing with vulnerable persons. ( To hear, a senior Police officer from Humberside Police, whilst at our house, say to us "I do not know the difference between psychosis and psychopathy"! is an indication of the reason the Humberside police are at the bottom of the Police league tables.) You know that the witnesses as a whole did not corroborate the police testimony. You know that 4 shots were fired when Simon was already on the ground, no doubt with fatal wounds already taking away his consciousness. You know that the 2 Officers had months to develop and compile their story, even then having to change it during the Inquest itself! You know that Officer C quite blatantly lied in Court. "Left hand in his pocket for his phone", when forensics clearly showed that he was cradling the bundle of swords and would have had no free hands to wave a sword. As the Coroner’s lawyer states at the end of the Inquest: "If Simon didn’t have an upraised sword, where was the threat?"!
Finally you must know in your heart that an Inquest, held in Hull where the jury had been exposed to all the negative press reports, were “not fit for purpose” in bringing any sense of justice for Simon and us. Many people still ask us what really happened and why they had to shoot to kill an innocent young man and, moreover ‘who is finally accountable’. To us the nub of the matter you and our "system" have failed to address!
Recently Dorothy and Jonathan were invited by Sir Nicholas Long to speak to all the Commissioners (David was abroad at the time) at the IPCC Headquarters in a private meeting. Dorothy was asked to speak about our family experience as a whole before, during and since the shock of the Inquest. The excellent human rights QC and Barrister who helped put out a balanced view at the Inquest were of course rightly shocked by the Jury verdict in the light of ALL the evidence. We are led to understand even the Police lawyers were surprised and taken aback. Michael Topolski’s advice note to us after the inquest included these paragraphs:
"The thread that runs through the judgements of the higher courts is that if firearms officers panic and fire lethal shots and then seek to fabricate evidence to cover up the fact that they panicked, this does not rebut a defence of honest belief of an imminent threat of serious harm. Thus unlawful killing cannot be established "beyond reasonable doubt" to the criminal standard by reason pf “post hoc” fabrication alone. Therefore in general authorized firearms officers are able to erect a defence of self defence with relative ease which is then extremely hard to rebut. It seems to us that the sort of evidence required to show firearms officers did not act in self defence would have to be positive evidence going beyond fabrication of their account of a shooting. Such evidence might include for example being heard expressing the desire to kill a suspect following authorisation of firearms prior to a shooting."
Your acknowledgement in the article that before you were DPP "I would have been appalled by the decision that I went on to make. I would probably have thought it unspeakably wrong," begs some serious questions:
- Are we to understand that had you not been the DPP but a Q.C. working in Matrix chambers you would have made the same decision that Sheelagh Judge, Mr Smith and Mr Waterman made, a charge of murder.
- That your position of power meant that your accountability to the state and the police is paramount to that of an innocent young man.
- That moral certainties are inevitably "promiscuous" when anyone is in power? ( The cartoon above your article would certainly agree, and the Iraq war inquiry!)
- To go on in your article to compare torture of terrorists and the murky areas of law it inhabits bears no relation to the shocking and avoidable death of our son.
- For us we do experience "helpless outrage at the reality of the world we inhabit".
You lacked courage in your decision, we suspect you were "leant on"! Whatever the verdict, a full case heard in an adversarial Court would have brought out things needing to be changed, about Police procedure, police ignorance, police carelessness.
We have been left with nothing except the complete waste of a lovely young mans life. We have received no financial support for the costs we have had to sustain, including lengthy counselling, payment towards the cost of the inquest, substantial loss to the charity for which Simon worked and the cost of his untimely funeral. We have had no apology or acknowledgement of any fault from the Humberside police. After coming to see us last year, when we presented a number of papers to them about our loss and our subsequent treatment by the police, their only offer to us was a visit to the call centre and to the firearms training unit! We include the letter we wrote to them from which we had a refusal of any apology from them. We are left with undiminished agony at the injustice we have received at the hands of the State, coupled with the continuing grief of the loss of our gentle, caring son and brother.
We would quote again to you two verses from the book of Proverbs which were sent to you by a friend of ours after you had decided that there would be no prosecution of the police.
- Proverbs 17 verse 15 - Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent, the Lord detests them both.
- Proverbs 18 verse 5 - It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.
We put at your door the responsibility for the grievous lack of justice we, and Simon, have had at the hands of the State. In this case, the 51% certainty of a conviction was never the issue but protection of the police, expediency, and "behind the scenes" deceitfulness.
Yours Sincerely, Dorothy and David Murden