18 August 2005
There are always two questions that should be asked about any leaked document. One is what it contains. The other is what the leaker hopes to achieve. The real difficulty of answering the second question is one reason why it would have been better if the dramatic details of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes had not been leaked. They should have been allowed to emerge in the full report, based on all the evidence, which the IPCC is currently drawing up. It is part of the ABC of fairness not to rush to judgment on incomplete evidence. Those who want justice to be done, as opposed to those with other agendas, must be careful. Justice - for all those involved - has not been made impossible. But it has not been made easier. It is hard not to fear that this is what the leaker wants.
Until the IPCC publishes its report it is hard to say precisely what happened and why. We do not really know if the armed response was a flawed policy faithfully carried out with tragic consequences or whether it was an defensible policy carried out in a flawed manner. What we do know is that the credibility of the police and of what Sir Ian has told the public have been shaken. But it is premature and demagogic to call for this or that person to resign or to be prosecuted. The full truth must be allowed to emerge and a proper system of holding individuals to account must be permitted to function. One abuse of process does not justify another. Neither the police nor their critics should try to railroad the process in their own interests. This was a terrible event, in a grim context, but its notoriety should not overwhelm the need for the truth to be upheld and for justice to be done.
