Not long after his firearms officers fired seven bullets into Jean Charles de Menezes, Sir Ian Blair placed a call to the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

It was about 11am on July 22, 2005, and, following his usual practice with important calls, Sir Ian taped the conversation with Nick Hardwick.

“We’ve now shot somebody, I think dead, who refused to respond to anything that we were asking him to do,” the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said. “I’ve got three more potential suicide bombers out there.”

It was plain that, at that stage, Sir Ian believed that the dead man was one of the four would-be suicide bombers who had tried to detonate devices the previous day. The commissioner was to labour under that misapprehension for another 24 hours.

Factfile: revelations from the de Menezes trial

Information about the police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, on July 22, 2005, that has emerged during the trial

Multimedia

• Pictures: Jean Charles de Menezes

BACKGROUND

• Ian Blair survives no confidence vote

• Timeline: how de Menezes identity emerged

• Come quietly, Sir Ian – you’re banged to rights

• ‘It is my task to ensure that lessons are learnt’

Related Internet Links

• Download full report

Related Links

• Met under pressure after de Menezes report

• Two years, two inquiries – only one man blamed

• Still Unanswered

All around him, senior officers, secretaries and off-duty policemen quickly became aware that an innocent man had been shot. But no one told the man at the top. Sir Ian did not learn the truth about Mr de Menezes until 10.15 on the morning of July 23.

The IPCC report into allegations that Sir Ian and the Metropolitan Police deliberately misled the public over the shooting paints a picture of a commissioner seemingly out of touch with important events.

It was a hectic period at Scotland Yard. The inquiry into the July 7 bombings a fortnight before — Britain’s largest single act of murder — took a back seat while all resources were thrown into the hunt for the July 21 bombers. The fear haunting officers was that the bombers were still at large.

The pace of events was frenetic, but so too was the speed at which the rumour mill was turning. The rumours gained greater credence after Mr de Menezes’s wallet was recovered, indicating that he was Brazilian.

John Yates, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner who would later lead the cash-for-peerages investigation, was off duty and watching a Test match at Lord’s when he took a phone call about the shooting. Other senior officers, also watching the cricket, received further calls and by mid-afternoon were aware that “a terrible mistake” had been made at Stockwell.

Another senior officer, Brian Paddick, was in the commissioner’s outer office about 3.30pm and claims that Sir Ian’s staff officer told him: “We’ve shot a Brazilian tourist.” Outside the office of Paul Stephenson, the deputy commissioner, his secretaries, Laura Holford and Karen Scott, also heard that “they had got the wrong man”. The IPCC report said: “[Ms Holford] states that she went home shocked, thinking that a potentially innocent person had been shot and that there were all sorts of implications [for the Met] about what she had been told.”

At Marylebone police station, Detective Inspector Peter Howarth heard about 5pm that there had been “a massive cock-up”. The report noted that Mr Howarth “had no role in the shooting or terrorism investigations”. But the head of the force did not pick up on the rumours. Nor did any of his senior staff tell him that there was growing evidence that an innocent man had been killed.

At a press conference at 3.39pm, Sir Ian announced that the shooting had been “directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation . . . I understand that the man was challenged and refused to obey”.

As he left to go home about 7pm, Sir Ian asked Detective Chief Superintendent Maxine de Brunner if the identity of the man was known. “No sir,” she replied. Sir Ian then asked: “Why not?” Ms de Brunner said that it was because the man could not be visually identified. Mr de Menezes was, sources say, unrecognisable because of the bullet damage to his face. Ms de Brunner told the IPCC that Sir Ian left “concerned and frustrated”.

The IPCC found that he left that night “almost totally uninformed about the post-shooting events”. But it rejected the allegation of misconduct against Sir Ian and concluded that he did not intentionally mislead the public. The report found, however, that there were “serious weaknesses” in the way in which the Metropolitan Police was run under his command.

Key findings

1 No evidence that Sir Ian Blair intentionally misled the public; but questions as to why he was uninformed about the identity of Jean Charles de Menezes

2 Andy Hayman, the Assistant Commissioner, should be disciplined for misleading the public and failing to inform the Commissioner

3 Four officers and staff made mistakes in handling information and should receive “constructive advice”

4 Home Office should review “serious weaknesses” in the Met’s handling of critical information

5 A clear strategy should be developed to keep the Commissioner informed of all events

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• All that glitters is not sold in Wright’s world
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend