Jean Charles de Menezes was killed because he behaved exactly like a suicide bomber, a jury at the Old Bailey was told yesterday.

In his closing speech Ronald Thwaites, QC, the defence barrister for the Metropolitan Police, said: “He was shot because when he was challenged by police he did not comply with them but reacted precisely as they had been briefed a suicide bomber might react at the point of detonating his bomb. Furthermore, he looked like the suspect and had behaved suspiciously.”

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times on July 22, 2005, on a train at Stockwell Underground station by officers who mistook him for Hussain Osman, who had tried to set off a ruck-sack bomb at Shepherds Bush the day before. Mr Thwaites said that his death was a “terrible accident” but “it wasn’t the fault of the police”.

He said: “Not only did he not comply, he moved in an aggressive and threatening manner as interpreted by the police and as would be interpreted by you and me in those circumstances, less than 24 hours after an attempt to bomb the Underground and a bus had taken place.”The firearms officers who shot him were “not trigger-happy gunslingers ready to shoot anybody and everybody”.

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

Mr Thwaites recounted the evidence given by officers during the trial, which began on October 1. One officer, codenamed Ivor, involved in the operation, had said that Mr de Menezes seemed “agitated”, with his hands “held below his waist and slightly in front of him”. Mr Thwaites said that Ivor had pinned the Brazilian’s arms to his sides, fearing that he was “putting two wires together, towards a belt, towards a battery, a detonator – who knows?”

Another officer said that Mr de Menezes jumped up from his seat. A third said that he “showed no sign of complying”. Mr Thwaites suggested that Mr de Menezes may have reacted to the police confrontation in the way he did because he had a forged stamp in his passport and had taken cocaine.

“What was he doing with his hands when he was challenged?” Mr Thwaites said. “Did he fear that he might have some drugs in his jacket and might want to get them out and throw them away when he was challenged by the police? I don’t suggest he did have any drugs in there. Did he wonder whether he might have any drugs left from when he last used them?

“Might he have been concerned about the forged stamp? Is that why he was trying to get away, if that was the move he was trying to make?”

Mr Thwaites said that the case was the symptom of a British blame culture. “We live in a blame culture,” he said, “when nothing that happens can go unnoticed. Nothing can happen without somebody being called to account. What better for some people than the sport of prosecuting the police? They would wet their lips with relish at the thought of having the Commissioner himself, never mind his office, here on trial at the Old Bailey, to have the Commissioner of Police disgraced over the killing of an innocent Brazilian.

“This case should never have been brought by any conscientious prosecuting authority worth its salt, who looked coolly and calmly and comprehensively at the facts, but here we are, the Office of the Commissioner in the dock.”

The Metropolitan Police denies putting the public at risk during a surveillance operation under the public safety clauses of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The trial continues.

Times Recommends

• Fern Britton: 'I still can't see that I was wrong'
• Extreme cooking
• Easy French: Tarte Tatin