The Disgraceful Sir Michael Wright, A Grovelling Tool of the Police State 37


One of the features of a transition to a police state is that those who should defend our liberties transfer their allegiance to the executive of the state. Viz the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Serjeant at Arms. Now we have a senior coroner. Sir Michael Wright, coroner in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquiry, who has told the jury they are not permitted to return a verdict of unlawful killing.

That is of course the obvious verdict from the evidence. Were it not so, the disgraceful Wright would not have needed to serve the police by so instructing.

Wright went on to give a completely one-sided summation of the evidence, restating police evidence and ignoring the evidence of many close eye-witnesses who contradicted it. In perhaps the most extraordinary passage in a summation in recent English legal history, he went on to justify the occasions where the police killers were caught obviously lying:

However, Wright added, even if the jury found the officers had lied, they would not be able to blame them for the death. “Many people tell lies for a variety of reasons … [including] to mitigate the impact of what might be a … tragic mistake,” he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/menezes-police-inquest

Read that again.

However, Wright added, even if the jury found the officers had lied, they would not be able to blame them for the death. “Many people tell lies for a variety of reasons … [including] to mitigate the impact of what might be a … tragic mistake,” he said.

Incredible, isn’t it? So it is fine to shoot a completely innocent man repeatedly in the head, and lie about it in Court, because you are only trying to “mitigate the impact”.

What?

Read it again.

However, Wright added, even if the jury found the officers had lied, they would not be able to blame them for the death. “Many people tell lies for a variety of reasons … [including] to mitigate the impact of what might be a … tragic mistake,” he said.

I still can’t believe the disgraceful old bastard said it.

I still do believe that we will come to recover from the terrible poison of the New Labour years, and return to being a liberal society. We will look back at all this as Americans now look back at McCarthyism, with horror and shame. And when historians write the history of these times, there will be a special footnote devoted to the infamous, the disgraceful, the appalling Sir Michael Wright.

There is a place reserved for Sir Michael in the deepest, blackest, hottest corner of Hell. He has already had much more time on this Earth than was allowed to poor Jean Charles De Menezes, who Sir Michael wishes us to believe was quite lawfully blown away by the police.

Let Sir Michael take his own good time to reach Hell. I certainly do not wish anyone to shoot him in the head while he is sitting peacefully on the Tube. But if they did, I certainly hope they deploy the defence “He was asking for it: he stood up”. And I certainly hope the judge agrees, and the words filter down to tease Sir Michael in his eternal torment.


37 thoughts on “The Disgraceful Sir Michael Wright, A Grovelling Tool of the Police State

1 2
  • peter dunn

    I was a reporter in Fleet Street for 40 years. The British media’s meek compliance with the coroner’s news blackout at a critical moment in the de Menezes hearing must go down as Fleet Street’s Day of Shame, a betrayal of its dwindling readership. Has anyone else noticed Gordon Brown’s response? He ran away to Afghanistan with an entourage of TV cameras to console the families of four paras killed in Helmund. Ironic or what?

  • peter dunn

    I was a reporter in Fleet Street for 40 years. The British media’s meek compliance with the coroner’s news blackout at a critical moment in the de Menezes hearing must go down as Fleet Street’s Day of Shame, a betrayal of its dwindling readership. Has anyone else noticed Gordon Brown’s response? He ran away to Afghanistan with an entourage of TV cameras to console the families of four paras killed in Helmund. Ironic or what?

  • peter dunn

    I was a reporter in Fleet Street for 40 years. The British media's meek compliance with the coroner's news blackout at a critical moment in the de Menezes hearing must go down as Fleet Street's Day of Shame, a betrayal of its dwindling readership. Has anyone else noticed Gordon Brown's response? He ran away to Afghanistan with an entourage of TV cameras to console the families of four paras killed in Helmund. Ironic or what?

  • Frank Berry

    Dear Mr. Murray,

    Having read the remarks made by Sir Michael Wright during the de Menenez inquest, I think that it is possible he was not as twisted as you suggested. He said to the jurors that it is natural to lie to mitigate the impact of what might be a tragic mistake, which is true. He did not say it was legal however, and although the lies did not help the situation afterwards, they did not directly contribute to Mr. de Menenez' demise. You are correct that the police should be prosecuted for lying under oath and attempting to pervert the course of justice, but I don't think his remarks would prevent this. As for his direction regarding the police committing no criminal or corporate offence, this has two possible explanations. Either the police have -literally- a licence to kill, or their actions come under the Common Law right of self-defence, which includes pre-emptive strikes. Whether a man lying face down in a bear hug still represents a clear and immediate threat to others is open for debate, but given the willingness of certain religious extremists to embrace martyrdom, the counter could be that it was better to be safe than sorry.

    I contacted Sir Michael by email to confirm this and if you wish, I will be happy to forward a copy of his reply(if any).

    The incident reminds me of a situation where a naked man was shot and killed by an Armed Response Team in the comfort of his own home, only for them to discover he was not their intended target. At that inquest, the police maintained that he advanced toward them (sound familiar?), and the officer in charge admitted they (the police) 'were not very good.' The judge concluded that incompetence was not an offence, but this was in the days before the Corporate manslaughter Act ensured that perjury became an even more vital component of a police officer's survival kit.

    We can only think ourselves fortunate that there were so many witnesses to the incident, or Mr. Menenez would undoubtedly have gone to his grave, as a terrorist, end of story.

  • les

    Like j above, I always thought that no judge had the right to order which verdict a jury decided to bring in, Common Law since the time of the Magna Carta. The judge can only advise jurors. Otherwise, what is the point of having a jury in the first place? The judge's job is to set the sentence after the verdict, not to bully jurors! I also wish that all the jurors had ignored Michael Wright and brought in the verdict that their own consciences told them was the right one. Wright could hardly have held all the jurors in contempt, that would really have given the game away (that the 'trial' was fixed)!

    The logical next step of this precedent is that more judges will be telling their juries how to vote, especially when the case concerns 'authority figures'. After that, it will be getting rid of juries altogether.

    Then we really will have no chance of fair trials.

  • Anonymous

    Sad part is that the jury will probably follow this judge's instructions.

    Thats the REAL reason why the UK is now no longer any kind of democratic society – the people have no courage or morality.

    They watch TV, buy slave-goods from China, drink alcohol to great excess, eat too much and when that isnt enough, the friendly heroin dealer pays a visit.

    Nice place – glad I dont live there.

1 2

Comments are closed.