Met denies de Menezes charges

The Metropolitan Police have pleaded not guilty to breaching health and safety legislation over the death of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes.

Scotland Yard's legal representative, Mark Scoggins, indicated a plea of not guilty to one offence under Sections 3 and 33 of the Health And Safety At Work Act 1974.

The charge alleges that the Met failed in its duty of care towards the innocent Brazilian when he was shot dead by anti-terror officers after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

The plea was also entered in writing during a hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court before senior district judge Timothy Workman.

The case was adjourned to January 16 for a preliminary hearing at the Old Bailey.

In a statement, the Metropolitan Police said there were "compelling evidential grounds" to defend the case.

The force insisted that the actions of its officers on the day of the shooting were "not criminal acts" and said the prosecution was a "test case" for the police service nationally.

The statement also questioned again the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a case under health and safety laws.

The statement, issued after the hearing, said: "Whilst it would be inappropriate for us to comment on potential evidence in advance of the trial, we are able to summarise the Metropolitan Police Service's (MPS) position as follows:

"This prosecution is based on the action taken and decisions made by individual officers in the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of July 22 2005. These are not criminal acts by officers and they have the support of the MPS.

"There are compelling evidential grounds to defend this case.

"The decision to defend the case has been reached after the most careful consideration. It is not about diminishing the tragedy of Jean Charles de Menezes' death.

"We see it as a test case not only for policing in London but for the police service nationally.

"It also has implications for the general public in that it concerns the ability of the police service to protect the public at large when carrying out armed operations.

"We also profoundly question whether health and safety at work legislation, originally designed over 30 years ago to protect employees in the workplace or those affected by commercial enterprises, is the right 'vehicle' for evaluating the actions of an emergency service in relation to decisions made during fast-time, life-at-risk anti-terrorist policing operations."