The jury has returned an open verdict at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian electrician shot by Metropolitan Police officers on 22 July 2005. The jury's verdict was effectively a complete rejection of the account given by the police and a damning criticism of the operation which led to Jean Charles' death. Michael Mansfield QC and Henrietta Hill have been representing the family for the last 2½ years.

Jean Charles de Menezes was a 27 year old Brazilian electrician. On the morning of 22 July 2005 he was on his way to work when he was shot dead by two Metropolitan Police officers in a carriage at Stockwell Tube station. He was held down by a surveillance officer and seven bullets were fired into his head at point blank range in front of several fellow passengers. It was said that he was believed to have been Hussein Osman, who, with others, had tried to detonate suicide bombs on the London transport system the previous day.

The inquest into Mr de Menezes' death was delayed due to the investigation carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and then the trial of the Metropolitan Police under the health and safety legislation. This trial concluded with the Metropolitan Police being convicted and ordered to pay a substantial fine.

The inquest was formally resumed on 22 September 2008. This was the family's first opportunity to challenge the police account and test the evidence through their lawyers. Many of the passengers from the train carriage gave their eye witness accounts for the first time. The jury also heard from many of the police officers involved in planning the operation that led to Mr de Menezes' death as well as the two officers who actually shot him. Most of the police witnesses gave evidence anonymously from behind screens, despite the objections of the family and the media to this.

At the end of the evidence the family's lawyers urged the Coroner, Sir Michael Wright, to leave the jury a verdict of unlawful killing, but he refused. He also refused to permit the members of the jury to return their own narrative verdict but instead insisted that they answer a set number of questions. An immediate judicial review of this decision was lodged by the family.

The members of the jury were left with a choice between a lawful killing verdict and an open verdict. Their choice of the latter means that they were not satisfied to the balance of probabilities that the officers who shot Mr de Menezes did so in self-defence. It is a complete rejection of their evidence in this regard.

The jury also answered a series of questions about what happened in the train carriage, and their answers to these also show that they did not believe the officers' accounts in several key respects. Notably they specifically concluded that Mr de Menezes was shot without any warning of "Armed police" having been shouted at him.

The jury was also asked to determine whether several factors caused or contributed to Mr de Menezes death. Their answers on these issues reflect a damning criticism of the police operation. For example they concluded that the police's failure to obtain better photographs of the suspect, their failure to ensure Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport, the failure to communicate the views of the surveillance officers to the command team, the fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known by the command team, shortcomings in the police communications systems and their failure to use surveillance officers to stop Mr de Menezes all caused or contributed to his death.

The family will continue with their judicial review of the options the Coroner left the jury. They have previously been involved in judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute any individual police officer, and the decision of the Coroner to adjourn the inquest pending the health and safety trial. See also R (Da Silva) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Independent Police Complaints Commission [2006] EWHC 3204 (Admin) [bailii link] and R (Pereira) v Inner South London Coroner and others [2007] 1 WLR 3256].