De Menezes police 'had no picture of suspect'

Some of the surveillance officers staking out Jean Charles de Menezes's home did not have a picture of the July 21 suspect they were hunting, it was claimed today.

Several of the officers watching the south London address only saw a poor-quality image of terrorist Hussain Osman during a briefing, the inquest into Mr de Menezes's death heard.

Michael Mansfield QC said three other better quality images had been recovered from his unexploded rucksack bomb but no one told the officer in charge.

Mr Mansfield, who represents the de Menezes family, criticised deputy assistant commissioner John McDowall during a series of tense exchanges.

Mr McDowall was responsible for setting the strategy to capture the men behind the failed bomb attacks on the London transport network the previous day.

Mr de Menezes was shot dead by CO19 firearms officers who mistook him for a suicide bomber after he left his home in a block of flats linked to Osman.

Mr Mansfield accused Mr McDowall of making strategic decisions in a vacuum, failing to ensure his strategy was clearly communicated and omitting to check key information.

At one point he said the senior counter-terrorist officer was talking "nonsense" as he claimed no tactical firearms advisers were available at Scotland Yard in the early hours of July 22.

Mr Mansfield outlined how surveillance officers were shown a passport-style picture of Osman recovered from a South Bank Gym card found in his rucksack.

He said three other ripped-up images of Osman and his wife were also recovered from his rucksack bomb.

He said: "Were you aware that, in fact, some of them were out and about on patrol as it were, as surveillance, without a photograph at all. Do you know that?"

Mr McDowall replied: "No, I was not aware of that."

Mr Mansfield said: "I mean, that does not help does it, when you know about the difficulties of positive identification, if you do not even have a copy of the photograph with you and you have only seen it back at a briefing?

"That is not exactly best practice, is it?"

Mr McDowall replied: "No, sir, no."

The fourth day of the 12-week inquest into Mr de Menezes' death saw a senior police officer cross-examined by Mr Mansfield for the first time.

As he opened his questioning, Mr Mansfield asked: "What went wrong, so wrong that a totally innocent man is dead?"

Mr McDowall replied: "It is my belief that there was a mistaken identification and then there was doubt about whether that identification was correct or not.

"I think that was instrumental in bringing about the tragic outcome that we know of."

Mr Mansfield went on to outline what he claimed were a series of failings by Mr McDowall.

He said:

Mr McDowall took strategic decisions "in a vacuum" without considering what could be achieved by firearms and surveillance colleagues;

Directions by the senior officer about what officers watching the Scotia Road flats should do if anyone emerged were not "clearly communicated";

Mr McDowall did not investigate whether 21 Scotia Road was a separate property or otherwise, despite the fact that maps and building plans were readily available;

The operation commander did not clearly appoint other more junior officers, leading to "controversies and confusion";

Mr McDowall failed to investigate surveillance pictures taken in Cumbria the previous year which were later found to include Osman.

Then, Mr Mansfield said: "I am going to suggest to you, as we go through, it is quite a lot that did not occur to you that night.

"It is quite a lot that did not occur to you that eventually led to the death of this innocent man, do you follow?

"Has that ever occurred to you that, in fact, there are omissions by you that really, had you followed up - and a large number of things - the whole scenario might have been different?"

Mr McDowall said: "I do not accept that. I think that, with benefit of hindsight, one does look back at what one has or has not done and, clearly, I think, there probably are things that I could have done but for whatever reason at that time I did not think of it."

Mr McDowall said there are "certain aspects" that could have been done differently in preparing the manhunt strategy.

Asked to give an example, he said: "Well, for example, we have discussed the time it took the firearms team to get to the briefing.

"Had I known that it was taking that long - I have had an explanation for why that is and I am not sure we could have shaved a huge amount of time off - but that is one of the things I have considered."

Earlier today, Mr McDowall admitted that he expected firearms officers to be in place in Scotia Road by 9am, two hours after he set a strategy to stop anyone leaving the address.

It emerged that only four of a possible six firearms teams were available in the capital because of annual leave.

Mr Mansfield asked "how on earth" a surveillance officer, known only as Frank, could do his job from his position in Scotia Road.

He said the officer's van overlooked a communal door serving nine separate addresses and he could not know which occupant was leaving.

The barrister said: "Let us be frank about it, using his name, it is impossible isn't it?"

Mr Mansfield outlined how he believed the senior officer's overall strategy for watching the premises was flawed.

As he was told several officers were involved in the large operation, he accused Mr McDowall of "absolving yourself of responsibility".

Mr Mansfield said the police operation was an "entirely unacceptable situation" that could have been avoided.

He said: "Do you accept that there are significant lapses of information that resulted in a strategy being set in stone that was entirely inappropriate?"

Mr McDowall said that in an "ideal world" he would have been told the plan to stop every resident was not working sooner.

Later, Mr McDowall admitted he could not rule out that a similar tragedy will never happen again.

Mr Mansfield said: "You are not suggesting therefore that this is likely to happen again are you?"

Mr McDowall replied: "I very much hope that this will never happen again.

"But at the same time with human beings, it is entirely feasible the same such tragedy may occur again just with the way circumstances unravel themselves."