Dr Jonathan Rogers considers the relationship
between Article 2 and the law of crime prevention
We are familiar with the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistaken by police for a suicide bomber at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005. After a lengthy investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) took the view that it could not realistically expect to disprove the officers` anticipated defence of the prevention of crime under the Criminal Law Act 1967 (CLA 1967), s 3.
The cousin of de Menezes then sought judicial review of the decision not to prosecute the police officers involved in the shooting for murder or manslaughter. The application was heard on its merits but was unsuccessful (see R (on the application of da Silva) v DPP [2006] EWHC 3204 (Admin), [2007] NLJR 31, [2006] All ER (D) 215 (Dec)). To many, this was unsurprising. Since those who plead the prevention of crime are judged—in criminal cases—on the facts as they believed them to be, even if they were unreasonably mistaken (see R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER
