Finally the Murden Family's Disclosures Following the Inquest

• Letter from Ken Macdonald QC to the Murden family
• The Murden Family Response to Ken Macdonalds letter
• The Crown Prosecution Service press release
• The Murden Family response to the CPS press release
• Response to the final DPP statement April 2008
• Dorothy’s words expressed the hopes of the whole family now not realised…
• Previous statements released on this this website

Letter from Ken Macdonald QC, Director of Public Prosecutions to the Murden Family - 3rd October 2006

(This we were asked not to disclose then as the case was still sub judice and there was also a threat of an injunction by the Police on publishing anything further about the case)

NOTE: Italicised sentences and bracketed numbers refer to points in the following document to this, the Murden family response to this letter.

Dear Mr and Mrs Murden

We have not previously corresponded and therefore I would like first to take this opportunity to express to you my deepest sympathy for your bereavement and for the great distress you must have suffered since your son Simon's death on 22 March 2005.

I know that you have spoken to Sheelaugh Judge on a number of occasions and that she has kept you informed of the review of the evidence. As the Director of Public Prosecutions I take a close interest in the most sensitive cases that come to the CPS and when I heard about the circumstances of Simon's death, I asked Ms Judge to keep me informed about the evidence and her views on the prospects of conviction.

Having reviewed all the available evidence and with the benefit of counsel's advice, Ms Judge reached the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings against both firearms officers.(1). This conclusion was recorded in her Decision Document, dated 3 May 2006.

In accordance with internal CPS procedures, the papers were drawn to my attention. I had reservations about the sufficiency of the evidence against either of the firearms officers. In subsequent consultation with counsel, Robert Smith QC and Adrian Waterman QC, and Ms Judge I remained doubtful of the sufficiency of the evidence. Counsel and Ms Judge remained for their part satisfied that the evidence did meet the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This is the test that requires a Crown prosecutor to be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of convicting a defendant of the charge alleged. A realistic prospect of conviction is the prospect that a jury (in a case such as this), properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charges alleged. In view of this continuing difference of opinion(2), I decided that I should assume responsibility for reviewing the case and taking the final decision on whether either or both of the firearms officers who fired the fatal shots should be prosecuted for any offence. I will not repeat an account of the events leading to Simon's tragic death as they are already well known to you and I will only refer to those aspects that are relevant to explain my decision.

Like Counsel and Ms Judge, the principal offence I considered was that of murder. As the other elements of the offence were satisfied, the only issue was whether the officers were acting unlawfully when they shot Simon. That issue depends on the application of the common law of 'self-defence' and the provision of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967(3).

Self-defence is an absolute defence to murder, manslaughter or any other assault-based offence. Once self-defence is an issue, the burden is then on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. If the prosecution cannot discharge that burden, the defendant will be deemed to have acted lawfully and will be acquitted. It is clear that the circumstances of Simon's death raise that issue and the officers have already done so in their prepared statements and during interview.

In order to be able to prosecute, we have have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officers did not genuinely and honestly believe that force was necessary to protect either themselves or another(4); or alternatively, that even if they (or either of them) did genuinely and honestly hold that belief, they/he used a degree of force that was not reasonable in the circumstances(5) that they/he believed to exist. This is the two-stage nature of the legal principle of self-defence.

We would have to accept the following facts:

• The officers were faced with a man who was, and was known to be, in an unpredictable mental state(6);

• he was carrying some form of weaponry(7);

• he was approaching an area were unprotected members of the public were present;
  

• he ignored repeated commands to stop;

• even when struck by baton rounds he demonstarted a determination to proceed towards the populated area(8).

That is not the end of the matter, however. If the defendant personally holds that belief he must nevertheless respond to the threat in a way which objectively would be considered to be reasonable. This, I believe, is the narrow but critical point on which the decision in this case balances(10). Accepting that the officers did honestly and genuinely believe that Simon posed a threat to themselves and/or others, was their response reasonable(10)?

The law recognises that if self-defence is necessary, a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action(11) and that if in a moment of anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be strong evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

I do not believe that the prosecution could satisfy a jury to the criminal standard of proof that it was not reasonable for the officers to attempt to stop Simon by the use of baton rounds.

Clearly, the use of baton rounds did not have the desired effect. The threat remained the same and I am unable to conclude that, in those circumstances, their resort to the use of their firearms was unreasonable. I do not believe that the prosecution could satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the officers were not lawfully acting in defence of themselves and/or others.

This conclusion leads me to the inevitable conclusion that there is not a realistic prospect of convicting either of the officers for murder.

In the course of reaching this conclusion I have considered whether it would be realistic to distinguish between the shots fired by each of the firearms officers. I do not believe that a prosecution case that sought to draw a distinction between the number or timing of those shots would hold any greater prospect of a conviction. In my opinion, a jury would be unlikely to conclude that a response that was legitimately in self-defence at one moment became a murder a few seconds later (leaving to one side any difficulties over causation). I stress that the final, tragic outcome of this sequence took place in a matter of seconds(12), not minutes. In my opinion, a jury would be likely to conclude that this was, in effect, a single incident, involving both officers to the same degree. I do not believe a jury would seek to distinguish between the respective roles of the officers, or between different stages of the single incident.

Finally, I should add that I have considered whether there is a realistic prospect of convicting either officer of gross negligence manslaughter(13), on the basis that they were grossly negligent in resorting to lethal weapons once the use of baton rounds had not stopped Simon. But I see no realistic prospect of a jury reaching this conclusion, for the same reasons that would compel them towards accepting that the officers were acting in self-defence.

I recognise that the contents of this letter may come as a great disappointment to you, but I have given this tragic case the most careful consideration. It is now eighteen months since Simon died and I accept that I cannot know the pain you must still feel at losing him in such a way. I can only offer you my condolences at his tragic and untimely death and wish that, with the support of your family and friends, you can hope to rebuild your lives(15).

If you wish me to explain my decision(14) to you in person then please let me know and I will ensure that arrangements for this are made.

Ken Macdonald QC
Director of Public Prosecutions

The Murden Family reply to the letter from the DPP (above)

1. How is it that Ms. Sheelagh Judge, Mr. Smith and Mr. Waterman were unanimous in their decision on their first meeting on May 3rd. 06? A result that Sheelagh explained to us was highly unusual for 3 barristers to agree totally about all aspects of a case.

2. ‘Continuing difference of opinion’ i.e. your view against that of 3 highly experienced and qualified barristers.

3. What constitutes ‘self defence’ in the Criminal Law Act 1967?

4. How is it proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – officers did ‘genuinely and honestly believe, etc’ – is it merely their collaborative words against a dead man and simply their subjective opinion which is hard to gainsay. They had three months to prepare their story.

5. What constitutes a ‘reasonable degree of force’ in these circumstances?

6. ‘Unpredictable mental state’ – all officers trained to manage special populations – knew he wasn’t well – needed to be calmly handled – shouting was no good. Use of his spoken name.

7. 'Carrying some form of weaponry’ – they knew it wasn’t a fire arm, cross bow or any other projectile weapon!

8. ‘Baton rounds’ – only 2 – one didn’t hit him – 1 officer reloading his baton gun. How did Simon, they say, ‘demonstrate’ a ‘determination’ to move 150 yards to a ‘populated area’?
   

9. What degree of threat did they believe he posed? Someone ’armed’ with 3 ornamental swords who could have easily been overpowered – how is that a threat?.

10. ‘Objectivity would be considered reasonable’ ‘Narrow but critical point on which the decision in this case balances’ Was their response reasonable? I.P.P.C at the beginning said part of investigation would be around whether this was a proportionate response to Simon’s behaviour given all the facts. He was not demonstrating any form of aggression before or after he was shot with the baton round.

11. ‘a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action’ An armed officer who repeatedly has to cock his gun in order to fire is definitely weighing to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. An armed officer who changes from his baton gun to use a powerful handgun to join in with one shot is also definitely weighing to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action!

12. ‘a matter of seconds’ has that been tested out and is it in the forensic reports? – the word ‘seconds’ again acts as an exoneration.

Crown Prosecution Service Press Release - 3rd Oct 2006

DPP decides no charges following death of Simon Murden

NOTE: Italicised sentences and bracketed numbers refer to points in the following document to this, the Murden family response to this press release.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, QC, has decided that no officers from Humberside Police should face any criminal charges over the death of Simon Murden, who was shot dead on the A63 near Hull in March, 2005.

Mr Macdonald said: "First of all, I would like to express my condolences to Simon Murden's family for their terrible loss. This case is of the utmost gravity and sensitivity(1), principally to Simon's bereaved family but also, of course, to the officers who were investigated, to police officers more widely, and to the public at large. I have given every aspect of the case, and all the available relevant evidence, the most careful consideration before reaching my decision.

"At the time that this tragic event occurred, Simon was acting in an unpredictable manner, carrying a form of weaponry(2) that was capable of inflicting fatal injuries, and moving determinedly(3) towards an area where there were members of the public(4). Even after initial baton rounds(5) were fired, it was clear that he was determined to carry on towards the public(6). The officers who shot him have said that they honestly and genuinely believed(7) that in those circumstances, force was necessary to protect themselves(8) and others from lethal harm.

"I have seen the items that Simon was carrying and, having seen those items, I do not believe that the prosecution could disprove the officers' assertions that they honestly and genuinely believed them to pose a real danger(9) and that it was necessary for them to attempt to stop Simon by the use of baton rounds.

"Having failed to stop him with the baton rounds(10), the threat remained the same(11). I can only conclude that, in those circumstances, their resort to the use of firearms was reasonable in the context of the law of self-defence(12).

"It follows from this that I do not believe that the prosecution could satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the officers were not lawfully acting in defence of themselves and/or others. I am therefore led to the inevitable conclusion that there is not a realistic prospect of convicting either officer of a charge of murder, or any other offence(13)."

Notes to Editors

1. Simon Murden was killed on 22 March 2005. About 6am he left the family home in his father's van and was reported by other drivers driving the wrong way along the A63 dual carriageway near Hull. Alerted by a call from Simon Murden's father, armed police response vehicles were deployed. The van was in collision with another vehicle after which Simon was seen walking alongside the road by two police officers, who believed he was carrying actual, or potential, weapons. He was walking towards a petrol filling station where there were members of the public. The officers fired baton rounds, but he appeared to continue towards the filling station. He was shot and killed by a combination of bullets from the guns of the two officers.

2. A file of evidence was referred to the CPS on 9 January 2006 following an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

3. That file also considered the position of two other officers. The reviewing lawyer decided there was insufficient evidence against those officers for any criminal offence. The DPP agreed with that decision and did not review that aspect of the case further.

4. For further details, contact CPS Press Office on 020 7796 8180.

The Murden family reply to the C.P.S Press Release

It was with horror that we read in the papers the C.P.S. press release letter. In our opinion this letter was offensively duplicitous and full of emotive and dissembling language. This statement once again portrayed Simon as a ‘weapon wielding madman’, just one of the terrible descriptions that the police clearly leaked shortly after his shooting.

This statement clearly puts all the blame on Simon and no responsibility on the police – it effectively misleads the public. In its broadest sense it re-assures the public that they can feel safe in their trust of the police. But for those who know beyond this text, you would fear to inform the police ever again about someone who is suffering a breakdown and who needs support and care.

We wish to take you through this document to indicate our severe criticism and anger over a hugely misleading press release:

1. ‘Utmost gravity and sensitivity’ – understand this phrase in relation to us as a family and the officers – How do you think it relates to police officers more widely and public at large?
   

2. ‘Carrying a form of weaponry capable of inflicting fatal injuries’ - emotive and . None of the swords could do that – 2 trained police officers with protective clothing – how could a young skinny man with his hands full ever have inflicted a fatal injury on either of them?
   

3. ‘Determinedly’ (show by example-walk towards door) – emotive, further misleading.
   

4. ‘Members of public’ – Where were they? About 150 yards away!
   

5. ‘Initial baton rounds’ – hugely misleading (Perception is several) Fact: 2 rubber bullets – 1 of which missed – known fact that may be ineffective e.g. through leather jackets, etc. so why did they rely on that? (Taizers – Humberside police)
   

6. ‘Clear that he was determined to carry on towards the public’. Misleading emotive and no proof. Did he say so? Did he show any aggressive signs with the swords? His intention was to get rid of them – the police certainly saw to that!
   

7. ‘The officers…..honestly and genuinely believed…real danger’ Emotive and misleading – of course they are going to say that – Can you swear that it’s honest and genuine?!! Carrying the 3 artefacts with no aggressive act before, made their claim to fear for their lives, untenable
   

8. ‘Force necessary to protect themselves’ emotive and misleading – see point 2 – could have gone up and hit him with the butt of their gun and he would have gone down – could have rugby tackled him or strong armed him or at any rate held back and cordoned off his walking to area of garage forecourt. Policemen and women in any city centre on a Saturday night face drunken public with ‘lethal weapons’ in a much more crowded environment and they don’t use guns to protect themselves.
   

9. ‘Seen the items…..do not believe….etc’ emotive, sensational, misleading and a lie. We know what those swords were, An ornamental sword from Mont St Michel bought by Simon when he was 12, a Touareg tourist sword still in its scabbard and a smaller African tourist sword – all of these swords came through customs with no question about them being a lethal weapons.
   

10. ‘Having failed..’ duplicitous, misleading, emotive. One officer was re-loading his baton round gun – he didn’t think he had failed or hadn’t the time to reload! His colleague (presumably panicked) opened fire!
    

11. ‘Threat remained the same’ – threat of what – that they were to be hacked to pieces – their heads would be chopped off – he would do this in one fell swoop to the 2 of them – and with which of the swords?!
    

12. ‘Resort to the use of firearms reasonable in the context of self-defence’ Emotive and misleading – Reasonable – to fire at him 9 times? To cock and fire, and cock and fire, and cock and fire, and cock and fire over and over – and a further shot from the other officer – is ‘reasonable’! Unreasonable in any context.
    

13. Final paragraph – unfounded, callous and unbelievable – words fail us to describe what we think about these words which do not demonstrate justice in any form.

Murden Family Response to the final DPP Statement April 2008

Our family are still in total and continuing shock that after 3 1/2 years of patient waiting there is still no vindication, compensation, or accountability for Simon’s needless death.

The Inquest did nothing but reveal even more facts and evidence which confirmed our worst fears: that the Police have been protected from blame by a process of law which is at best misleading and at worst a cover up of their actions.

The early portrayal of Simon as an out of control, high on drugs, “Samurai” sword wielding aggressor, dangerous to the Police and Public, has not been given a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary the Inquest revealed and demonstrated facts which showed he was no threat to anyone had he been handled with any common degree of humanity and professionalism? Both were missing from those who engaged, confronted and assaulted him on that morning. This still requires accountability.

Having reviewed the “live notes” evidence of all key witnesses, it is glaringly apparent their testimony flies in the face of the explanation and description of the threat Simon gave to put the shooters “in fear of their lives” from his carrying of “the sword type weapons”. The facts showed this to be nonsense and destroys their credibility to a Public who generally have reacted to the local News items throughout the Inquest with incredulity that “they had to do it”.

This horror and distaste is further augmented by the clear evidence that Simon was shot with live rounds whilst he was still on the ground. Simon was given no chance of life after being hit with Baton rounds, which had further shocked and disorientated him, giving time for the Police to control his actions peacefully (stated by a witness who questioned why they didn’t). Their tunnel vision and cowardice and knee jerk reactions at best led to his manslaughter. To be shot 12 times in a space of approximately 20 seconds at most and then be told each of the 10 shots after the 2 Baton rounds was thought about and accountable was sheer falsity and the explanation of Simon’s ‘threat’ to justify this, a demonstrable fabrication. Both the Forensic Scientist and the unobstructed view witnesses do not in any way endorse the shooters descriptions of Simon’s demeanour and aggression. It was entirely the other way round.

We come here today to beg you to reconsider your original decision as to prosecution. The information that emerged at the Inquest produced a huge amount of evidence further to the written witness statements for this case still to be brought to a Criminal Court.

Clearly Mr. Smith, Mr. Waterman and Miss Judge’s original advice notes that “they were satisfied there was sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings” was more than confirmed to us, our Counsel, friends and the Press by the facts at the Inquest. Now that you have read Mr. Auty’s report and spoken with him, what still confirms your judgement against their advice?

We have read again the live note transcripts of C and D, the key witnesses and expert evidence, including Dr. Robinson’s forensic evidence. This has been a further very painful experience for us to again re-visit the graphic and horrific way in which our son and brother met his death. We have had to do this in order to again plead for justice for Simon and to present to you an informed and comprehensive overview of the events.

On re-reading all the key witness evidence we stress these findings: Mr. Brook, Mr. Wright, Mr.Quinn, Mr. Hepton, Mr. P. Welham, Mr. D. Welham, Mr. Johnson, Miss Walker, Mrs. Burkinshaw and Mrs. Brignall make no reference to a sword being raised. Miss Hopper, the only other key-witness, refers to a stick pointing downwards and being wafted.

It is important to note that the three women in the BP Garage were taken over to the Little Chef and asked questions by Humberside Police before they were interviewed by the IPCC. Jennifer Brignall, a major key witness who was closest to the action, made her statement to Humberside Police and not the IPCC. She was allowed to continue serving tea in the Little Chef which was the operations base for the Police on that day!

It is a major factor that all witnesses after the accident, including the Police video itself, endorse that Simon was not behaving in a threatening way and was not aggressive. The witness whose BMW car he got into spoke of him looking pale and tired but in no way threatening. Simon, as an ill, vulnerable, shocked, and ‘disconnected’, human being, was confronted and assaulted by those pointing guns at him. They screamed commands he couldn’t either hear or understand, he was not called by his name which at least one Officer admitted knowing. They established no backing off or attempt to establish any normal rapport, in fact admitted having no communication between each other or F and E before and during the confrontation, and he was shot dead in no more than 20 seconds!

In fact the précis of all that happened was “we shouted at him, he didn’t do what we said, so we shot him dead”.

There is a great deal in the “Live-note” content to which we could refer but are aware of the time constraint. Rather we will refer to one part of Officer C’s statement on pages 118-127 as an example of questionable testimony.

He speaks of a raised sword in Simon’s right hand, holding something in his left, dropping it, putting is left hand in his pocket, taking out a mobile phone, putting it to his ear, replacing it in his pocket, all before he shot him. Officer D did not see any of this! (They knew about the mobile phone in his pocket after he was dead !).

The irrefutable evidence of Dr. Robinson, the Forensic Scientist, that the swords which he was “cradling”, a phrase used a number of times by key witnesses, were clearly shot through with bullets and the “silver sword” had lead particles on it also, demonstrating it was in close proximity to the others.

This forensic evidence contradicts C and D’s account that the sword was being waved before the first live round from the carbine was fired.

Dr. Robinson’s evidence implied that all three swords were strapped together because the bullet hole in the strap corresponded with a hole through the two swords when the strap was under tension and not in immediate contact with the two swords. This indicated the third sword Simon was supposed to be waving about was strapped to the other two at the time when one shot passed through them. The closest civilian witness Mrs. Brignall, in the Little Chef said she never saw a sword being waved. All witnesses saw the 3 swords as one item and this appeared to be the case on the Police video.

We know that there were 9 shots fired by Officer C, 5 were found to have fatally wounded him at the Post Mortem, 4 were never found. Eyewitnesses speak of the grass flying up around Simon’s legs. Officer C states that Simon was only 10 feet away from him. Officer C was using a holographic site, denies double tapping, but “assessed each and every shot”. For an experienced fire-arms officer this series of events indicates to us excessive panic during which he misses a close target, the bullets only going into the ground. This indicates that Simon could not have been fully standing at the time otherwise they would have hit the Little Chef directly behind him!

Simon’s African portfolio, full of his songs and thoughts, was held much higher up than C and D claimed. Thus baton rounds did not strike the portfolio but the abdomen and groin. (Injuries noted by Shorrocks at the Post Mortem). This contradicted C and D’s evidence that the portfolio was somehow preventing the batons having their expected stopping power. Eye witnesses on the garage fore-court claim to have seen Simon go down following the firing of baton rounds and further shots being fired whilst Simon was still on the ground trying to get up!

All witnesses say Simon was on the ground when the pistol shot and the final three shots from the carbine were fired. The explanations given by the Officers for those final shots totally lack credibility including the ludicrous “Tuller Drill” rationalisation!

C and D were back at work a week after the shooting! They admit to regularly talking to each other then and of course had a period of 3 months in which to get their story together! Our meeting with Mr. Nick Hardwick, the head of the IPCC in October 2006 revealed that the IPCC and the Home Office were exploring and arguing for the issue of the ‘burden of proof’ to be the same for the Police as the Public. We also spoke about the ongoing discussion and argument with the Police Federation about ‘immediate post event interviews’ to be done with Officers independently. The subject of the recent Judicial Review brought by Mr. Saunder’s sister. None of these issues around the ’protection of the Police’ is resolved 3½ years later!

It is our opinion, though a value judgement, that the calibre of all the Police personnel and Officers, apart from the Gold Commander, were lacking in fundamental abilities to assess and take responsible, professional action. In some cases this led to behaviour and instructions which took ‘the threat’ to a level higher than was necessary, leading to the seeming panic reactions from Officers C and D.

We believe the Police did not do all they ought to have done reasonably to resolve these events peacefully to avoid the risk of death of a person in a special population group.

We know the following facts that emerged at the Inquest about the training of the Humberside Police Force:

1. A total lack of training of fire-arms Officers by Psychiatrists and Psychologists on the resolution of incidents involving vulnerable persons suffering psychotic conditions and breakdown and the essential difference between psychosis and psychopathy. The highly important use of a vulnerable person’s name needed to be emphasised in such training as confirmed by Dr. Rix, the Forensic Psychiatrist.

2. Lack of accredited psychological profiling of authorised FO’s to assess their suitability for fire-arms duties prior to commencement of basic fire-arms training and at regular intervals thereafter. Not done before March 2005.

3. Lack of formal training of FO’s to ensure that information given by the control room is accurately recorded on control logs (e.g. Moreton’s use of the word “handgun”)

4. Lack of formal training of all control room staff on vulnerable persons (e.g. Gillian Rack had no knowledge of Special Population Groups) and the fundamental importance of the use of a person’s name.

5. Lack of formal training of control room staff on the strict formalities of firearms Authorisation. (Stuart Bradley’s use of the words “immediate authorisation”).

Failure to harmonise control logs in the Northern Command centre (Gillian Rack did not enter log 69 information onto log 80).

Thus we want to stress our original opinion that an Inquest has ‘no teeth’ in matters as serious as these. If the Police are going to be free to shoot to kill they should be subject to a Court of Law like everyone else.

The shooting of Simon and other cases currently in the Public eye, e.g. the De Menenzes case, the recent Saunder’s case, seem to give justification for the Police ‘to shoot whom they like when they like and to use as many bullets and as much force as they like!’ All they have to do is trot out the mantra, “we were in fear of our lives”, in order to erect an impregnable defence of self-defence with relative ease which is very hard to overturn.

After a 6 week Inquest which included a huge amount of evidence, the Jury comprising 8 men and 3 women, were finally presented with two days of summary by the Coroner. An Inquest does not allow opportunity for arguments to be presented by Counsel in order to present the Jury with the variety of arguments. The average member of the Public generally believes, or still wants to believe, that the Police are to be trusted. We know that the narrative verdict, a highly complicated document, which many of us found hard to understand, prevented the Jury from reaching any other decision, and that the Police were allowed to “do it” because the APCO guidelines say they can!

In your letter to us on October 6th. 2006 you conclude by accepting you cannot know the pain of losing Simon in such a way.

Our feelings of pain and loss are now made even more acute by the experience of the Inquest.

The Humberside Police were not made accountable for their many mistakes during an episode that began in haste and was carried out in haste and resulted in an unnecessary and disproportionate use of force. That accountability and the lack of transparency also meant the IPCC were unable to issue any disciplinary proceedings against them.

Simon’s Human Rights, his right to life and justice, were and continue to be totally disregarded. For this we hold you, Mr. McDonald, responsible. We are sure you have a conscience as well as Professionalism and, as a former defence Lawyer involved with Human Rights, you must see this case as a ‘failure to see justice prevail’.

We are left with even more facts that the Police were grossly negligent in respect of a proportionate response .We are left with them still smearing Simon’s good character as causing his own death by his breakdown. This is not so and we will never give in to leave this as the last word on the matter.

The outmoded and inadequate Inquest system was not the place to hear this case. An adversarial Court, where all the facts came to light and could be shown clearly, would have allowed the transparency and accountability of the Police and where there was significantly more chance that Justice would have been seen to be done.

At the end of the Inquest, with the Jury absent, much discussion occurred between Counsel and the Coroner about the legal process. Here is a vital quote from Mr. Campbell, Counsel for the Coroner, Mr. Saul:

“The justification for the shots was of a “sword being wielded”.

“Armed but not acting in a threatening manner does not justify the use of shots.”

The need to neutralise the threat was based on an “uplifted sword”.

“If there was not an uplifted sword what was the threat?”

Dorothy’s words expressed the hopes of the whole family now not realised…

On that morning the calls that were made to the doctor and the Police were cries for help.

On that morning Simon was a confused, anxious, vulnerable and desperately ill young man.

On that morning how was the motto of Humberside Police - "Reassure, Protect, Help", expressed towards Simon, a law-abiding young man from a law-abiding family?

As a teacher of 25 years experience I had a duty of care towards the children i taught, and serious and far reaching consequences would have been the result if that duty of care had been breached.

How was a duty of care expressed towards my Simon?

I want to know the truth of why my gentle boy Simon was killed.

I want to see Simon's name and character cleared from the terrible maligning of the Press.

I want accountability from everyone involved for what happened on that morning.

I want to know how the Police response was proportionate and reasonable towards my lovely son, whom they knew was a vulnerable person, and who needed care and support.

I want to see changes in training and procedures of the Police so that no innocent person is killed in such a horrifying, cruel, careless and terrible way again.

I do not wany vengeance, I want justice.

Previous Statements released on this website:

Murden Family Statement following the Inquest - April 2008

The early reporting of Simon’s death in March 2005 was a terrible initial description which shocked and upset us in the face of the tragedy which still remains incredible to us and therefore still as hard to bear 3 years later. These totally deeply hurtful descriptions and stories have been embedded in all subsequent reporting. They are still around as hearsay despite the reporting of all the facts to the contrary. We have borne these patiently all this time, with an injunction over us not allowing us to contradict, hoping at least an Inquest would finally reveal them to be exaggerations at best and totally untrue in the majority of cases. How outrageous and powerful the forces of untruth are!

We simply now won’t have the image of Simon as an out of control, violent, Samurai sword wielding maniac, high on drugs, to be aired any more without the factual contradictions the IPCC investigations and the Inquest witnesses have brought totally to light. Simon has been more than vindicated but it hasn’t been clearly spelled out.

Without publishing the whole facts we wouldn’t be able to rest or draw any kind of closure so we can get on with honouring his name by doing some of what he wanted to do in Africa.

We are not able to do this fully now. Not because of the facts not being plain, but because we are shocked, devastated, and still exhausted from the Inquest proceedings themselves and the subsequent verdict which has left us with out a clear way forward.

So please, to all Simon’s friends and interested media; bear with us whilst we re-group and clarify all the facts and their many implications. These should be out there in the national news as they are so far reaching in their consequences and certainly in the Public interest.

After over 3yrs waiting for the truth about Simon's death, we are shocked and bewildered that the jury brought in by a majority verdict of ten to one that the officers were justified in shooting Simon dead. This is not what we were expecting!

The verdict was diametrically opposite to that expected by the opinion of several top QCs, senior solicitors, much of the press and public, as well as the family and many friends, that had heard all the weeks of evidence. The harrowing story in all it's details which we have waited three years to hear, has left us feeling greatly let down, especially as we have held our council for all this time expecting we would finally get proceedings which would bring to clear light the whole truth. We believe this watershed case has revealed a perceived inadequacy in what we feel is an outmoded system even though we have no criticism of the Coroner and personnel involved and the actual conduct of the Inquest.

We will be exploring issues around this topic in some depth later in this website as well as releasing many of the facts which have come to light. This case has inevitably raised complex and substantial isues surrounding personal liberties and human rights versus the excessive use of police power. These really canot afford to be ignored by us all, especailly at a time when the police and government are seeking even more draconian powers in many of these areas fed by an increasing paranoia about terrorism and violent crime and the gun culture.

The early media stories of Simon's behaviour and circumstances on that day have been shown to be mostly misrepresented by the facts witnessed during the Inquest.Now, many of these new facts have come to light,some of them scattered through the press and media during these past weeks, still leaving the waters somewhat muddy. Thus a complete picture to clear Simon's name has not been finally aired. We are left feeling somewhat "short-changed" and powerless that the police and the circumstances of that day have not been subjected to a full legal scrutiny which we believe would have inevitably made things clearer for all.

It seems that this inquest result has given a justification for the police to shoot whom they like, when they like, if they perceive they have grounds to do so from their own subjective point of view. The implicaions of this horrify us. Why cannot the Police, if they are going to shoot people, be subject to the same court of law as everyone else? We will have much more to say on these matters through this website in the future.

• Hull and east Riding Mail News Pages
• The Yorkshire Post
• Hull Campaigns for Change Website

Home : News : Projects : Simon Says : Crew : Music : Reports : Friends : Archive