Posted By Graeme Duty of Care by the looks of it, and the article below kind of says that to. General duty of care to employee and those effected by their operations. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" IslamOnline.net & News Agencies De Menezes was shot eight times by two Scotland Yard marksmen. CAIRO — No Metropolitan police officers will face criminal charges over the fatal shooting last year of an innocent Brazilian man who was mistaken for a suicide bomber, a leading British newspaper reported Saturday, July 15. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled out murder or manslaughter charges after a review of the circumstances surrounding the killing of the 27-year-old electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, The Guardian said. But the CPS, which oversees criminal prosecutions in England and Wales, is expected to announce on Monday, July 17, that the Metropolitan police as an organization will be charged with breaching health and safety at work laws over the unnecessary shooting. De Menezes was shot eight times by two Scotland Yard marksmen on an underground train at Stockwell on July 22 last year, the day after a failed attempt by suicide bombers to blow up three tube trains and a bus. A health and safety prosecution would mean an unlimited fine on the police authority. The Health and Safety at Work Act (HASWA) is a law enacted in 1974 that set basic principles which must be followed by both employees and employers to help ensure a safe working environment. Under the law, employers must ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that not only employees but the wider public who might be affected by their operations "are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety". In the wake of the London attacks, Britain's top police officer Sir Ian Blair ordered his men to shoot "suspected" bombers in the head. Rights activists slammed the shoot-to-kill policy, which was supported by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and said that they would mainly target ethnic minorities. "Insult" De Menezes's family viewed potential health and safety charges as an "insult," according to Jasmin Khan, the spokeswoman for the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign. She told The Independent that the family would push for a judicial review of the decision not to bring charges, and that a private prosecution was being considered "The family really want manslaughter or murder charges — that is the only decision they will be happy with or accept on Monday," she said. Harriet Wistrich said the family were likely to be "very unhappy" if no officer was prosecuted. "They would like to see officers held to account on a personal level, for somebody to be charged with a homicide offence," she told The Guardian. The report on the incident by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), delivered to the CPS last January, raised the possibility of manslaughter charges against the two firearms officers and Scotland Yard Commander Cressida Dick, the senior designated officer in charge of the firearms operation on the day of the shooting. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) watchdog has conducted two inquiries into de Menezes' death. One — on which the CPS will base its decision — about events leading up to and including the shooting; the other into comments made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair in the immediate aftermath, who supported the shoot-to-kill policy. Unprofessional "If there was gross negligence involved, then those responsible officers should face appropriate charges," said Bunglawala. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the largest Muslim organization in Britain, could not keep itself from jumping into the fray as British Muslims also suffered from the police raid on innocent fellow men. "If there was gross negligence involved, then those responsible officers should face appropriate charges," MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawal told The Guardian. Bunglawala believed that the circumstances surrounding the de Menezes killing have raised serious questions about the level of professionalism displayed by the senior officers involved in that incident and whether the killing could have possibly been avoided. Ties between British Muslims and the Metropolitan police hit all time low in May following the arrest of two British Muslims on claims of involvement in a biological terror plot, which later proved a mistake. Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot by police during the raid while his brother Abul Koyair was seized. Kahar accused police of shooting him without warning and without being threatened in any way.

Posted By Graeme I would suggest it would probably be reasonably practicable to check you are following the right individual before blowing his brains out all over a train floor.

Posted By Simon Carrier According to the news conference section 3 and 33 of the HSaWA will be used to prosecute.

Posted By paul debney Has there been a civil case yet from the family?

Posted By Graeme Someone was killed due to inadequate systems and procedures in place..... whether that person was killed on a construction site by a reversing vehicle ....or by a gun weilding police officer makes no difference. Its a relevant safety issue and there was clearly a severe lack of policy and procedures.

Posted By Gary IMD(UK) I can actually see both sides, however, as most of us have only read the press reports and not the true and full facts, how can anyone really comment? All I can say, given the 'Rights Brigade' that had I been that Police Officer, I don't actually think I would have taken a chance, given what had happened over the previous fortnight! Take care!

Posted By Graeme Its nothing to do with 'rights brigade' balls It is about an innocent member of the publics safety. There needs to be adequate procedures and systems in place to prevent INNOCENT people being followed and killed. There clearly isnt at the moment or people wouldnt be dead. People being killed due to inadequate procedures IS a safety issue infact its a huge one, completely seperate to any of your terrorism beliefs.

Posted By Stuart C ROB T - its not HSE that are alleging the breach under HSW its CPS. HSE are not the only wuthority that can enforce the Act and there have been a number of cases where H&S charges have been bundled in with manslaughter or similar charges. For my part I agree that this seems to be stretching the purpose of the Act to breaking point.

Posted By Robert K Lewis This one opens up whole new areas for conspiracy theorists and others. Just think if only we had resolved the ID card issue we could have moved on to implanting it as a microchip into everybody. There would be no need for passports or driving licences or any other document or card. It could be downloaded and read from a distance of whatever to verify the "holder". Then we could satellite track all holders and know exactly where everybody is. If you don't have chip you must be a bomber or other "terrorist". Frightening thoughts but how close to reality is it? I did not see much to impress me that the police were acting with due care in their identification of the hapless victim. However I would also hate to see it used as an argument for ID cards - Big Brother is not just on channel 4. That said I still think that the whole of the radio commentary today has been derogatory about the H&S prosecution potential and I think that the criminal sanctions possible have exposed most commentators and interviewees as rather weak in their knowledge of the field. It does make you wonder if the Coporate manslaughter changes would have had an impact. At least the top of the chain would have been under pressure. Bob

Posted By Rob T A couple of points - 1. if he hadn't been illegally in the UK he wouldn't have got shot regardless of circumstances and most importantly 2. what would the "rights' mob" have done if he had been a suicide bomber (as the police thought he was) and blown up a tube full of passengers. I suppose the rights of the perpetrator come before those of the wronged against as usual. The police have split second decisions to make in these circumstances and should never ever fall under H&S laws in shooting incidents - if they've been found not to have a case to answer in their inquiry then why should they be investigated again. Double jeapody!

Posted By J Knight Rob, Its not one person's rights versus anothers. Either we all have rights as individuals or nobody does. If the Police can get their intelligence & operating procedures so utterly wrong and shoot somebody who had nothing to do with anything then they can shoot anybody. As I said above, I firmly believe that the somebody they shoot could be me; why not? You evidently believe that there is something about the way you look (or run) that will protect you from such egregious errors; somthing shared by everybody who is dear to you. I do wish you would tell me what it is, then I could be as sanguine as you about extra-judicial execution. This whole thing about personal freedom versus collective security has been written about since Plato's days, and I've never seen such utter tosh written about it as in the UK and US press, John

Posted By Graeme The point is he wasnt a suicide bomber, had public safety procedures and systems been in place to identify this FACT, they would have known not to shoot him. And the male who was shot last month was in the UK legally and got shot.....so where does your arguement in point 1) stand now. To me you shout out to be the type who believe all immigrants or anyone who even looks like a terrorist should be sent home or shot.

Posted By Graeme Various police areas have been prosecuted under 'duty of care' ....hence the now extremely strict and thourough holding cell procedures So if this prosecution goes ahead, shoot to kill policy and procedures will need to be tightened in this area like they were with the holding cell procedures.

Posted By paul debney Dont forget under the HSAW Act the police are guilty until they can prove 'RP'. Is this why it was chosen?

Posted By paul debney Have I got a mental block here or is 'duty of care' a civil court matter?

Posted By Phillipe Rob T You cannot post statements like yours and not expect a reaction from others. Your posting is open to scrutiny just like the rest of them. In my opinion you deserved to be pulled up on it, regardless of whether it is fact or not. I support the Police in all they do. The fact they got it wrong does not mean they can simply get away with. We live in a democracy and on the surface of it appear to have a decent justice system. The fact the police are getting away with legitimate manslaughter is simply not on. They should be brought to account, not the Officer(s) who pulled the trigger but those above him who gave the go ahead. How it can be a safety case is open to debate as I stated earlier and as yet I do not see a single argument to back it up. You are condoning state killing....

Posted By J Knight Hi Paul, The Duty of Care is incorporated into HASAWA as it applies to safe systems of work, safe and competent fellow employees and safe plant and equipment, John

Posted By paul debney Thanks to j knight, wilsons v clyde coal isnt that still civil? Im tying myself up in knotts here thinking about bloody legislation. been a while since nebosh dip 1.

Posted By J Knight Rob, again, no it isn't; the Police were acting on faulty intelligence, and seem to have shadowed Mr DeMenezes for some distance before shooting him. They didn't have split seconds, they had ages. It would seem from your comments that you would happily be shot by mistake, I wouldn't, and I see nothing to reassure me that I wouldn't be the victim of the same kind of lamentable 'error' that killed Mr DeMenezes. You evidently believe that there is something about you which ensures that you won't be shot by mistake; I repeat my request, I would dearly love to know what it is. We live in a complex world, and just because the terrorists are in the wrong doesn't make the police always right. If mistakes were made (and you do admit they were) then they need to brought out into the open, and a court might just be the forum for that to happen. It's all very well to play the 'victim' card, but very unfair to forget that somebody shot 'by mistake' is a victim too, and to quote the NRA, guns don't kill people, people do, even if those people happen to be policemen. Yes, the bombings were dreadful, but so is the prospect of hyped up trigger-happy cops, John

Posted By Phillipe sorry