A senior police surveillance officer is under investigation after he admitted yesterday that he deleted evidence relating to the shooting in July 2005 of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The officer, based in the Metropolitan Police special operations squad, told the Brazilian electrician’s inquest that he deleted a line in his computer notes only last week.

The line in his notes claimed Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick initially said that Mr de Menezes could “run on to Tube as not carrying anything”.

Although it was brought to public attention yesterday, The Times understands that the matter involving the officer was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission last Thursday.

After looking at the allegation the IPCC decided to launch its “highest level of investigation” into the matter. The officer has been taken off front-line duty.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said she wanted the IPCC to report “as quickly as possible”. She said: “This is a very serious matter, which clearly must be investigated and the facts established. We are in close contact with the Metropolitan Police Service. It is right that they have referred the matter to the IPCC. Once the facts are established we will decide, in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Authority, what further action may be necessary.”

At the inquest, being held in a conference room at the Oval cricket ground in South London, the officer, named only to the hearing as Owen, said: “On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that.”

He told the inquest he removed the line from his notes on October 7 – more than two weeks into the hearing – because he “didn’t see it as relevant”. He deleted more than he had intended because he was in a rush to get to an appointment, he claimed. Saying that he was now not sure who had actually said that Mr de Menezes should be allowed to “run”, he added: “All I can say was that one of the options was letting him run because he was not carrying anything and that there’s a disagreement between management.

“I believe it was the commander but when I reflected I couldn’t be sure, or whether she was saying this is what we are going to do or this is one of the options. It was a woman’s voice.”

Minutes later Ms Dick effectively directed the shooting of Mr de Menezes by ordering a “hard stop”, Owen added. He said: “A hard stop is an aggressive stop. It’s not an official term but it is an aggressive stop.”

Owen said he mentioned the changes he made to a Metropolitan Police solicitor the day after he submitted his evidence, on October 8.

When asked if he was aware that what he had done was very serious, he added: “I have removed a line I believed was wrong and gave a totally false impression.”

When asked if management had asked him to make that amendment, he replied: “No. I am sure of that, sir.”

Ms Dick claimed previously that she believed Mr de Menezes posed a “great threat” as officers pursued him on July 22, 2005.

The full deleted line read: “CD - can run on to tube as not carrying anything. Persuaded by U/I male amongst management.”

Owen went on to claim the line was omitted because the computer note may have been “misleading”. Owen said he “flicked through” his notes and saw there were a “few mistakes”. He explained: “The other thing I have done is delete the line I had identified as wrong and misleading when I did the statement.” When asked why, he replied: “The detail changes do not materially affect the statement.”

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Underground station on July 22, 2005.

He had been mistaken for one of four would-be suicide bombers, who were on the run after the attempted attacks on the London transport network the previous day.

He was followed by police surveillance teams from a block of flats linked to one of the bombers.

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: “Once we were notified of an issue relating to a witness, an officer based in specialist operations, the MPS voluntarily referred this matter to the IPCC on October 9.”

A source at the IPCC told The Times that it understood the officer allegedly made changes to an aide memoire on October 7 because what he had written originally was inaccurate.

“This is the highest level of investigation”, the source added.

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating