UK: Police attempt shooting cover-up
01 September 1998
A three week inquest into the death of 21-year old James Brady was concluded on September 24 with the jury returning an open verdict. The inquest heard that Northumbria Police had information detailing a potential robbery of a social club in Newcastle, including the names of the suspects, where they would be leaving from, the fact that they had an imitation firearm and when the robbery was due to take place. However, rather than arresting the suspects prior to their arrival at the club, the police lay in wait and ambushed them as they entered the premises and Brady was shot dead. Brady's family been trying to establish why the police had not intervened at an earlier stage on the basis of their intelligence.
During the inquest all the officers involved stated the absolute propriety of the conduct of the operation and proceedings continued in this way until the family's counsel Leslie Thomas (a member of the Inquest Lawyers Group) was made aware of a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of two officers. Following some dispute the document was disclosed as a letter dated 6 May 1988 to Northumbria's Chief Constable in relation to a civil claim for damages resulting from psychiatric injuries sustained by ex-constables Hultson and Davidson during the operation. The letter detailed allegations by the officers of negligence on the parts of tactical advisor Constable Chris Palmer and Superintendent Jean Austin, and suggested that Brady's death could and should have been avoided. Recalled to the witness stand the officers could not answer adequately why they had failed to refer to their concerns during earlier evidence. Their reasons, however, were perfectly clear from the final paragraph of the letter:
"We understand that the Inquest into Brady's death will not take place until September...Our clients are mindful of the embarrassment their claims might cause the force, particularly if those representing Brady's family were to learn of our allegations before the inquest. With this in mind and to avoid any reference to this action at the inquest, we require an extension for time for service of the Statement of Claim..."
In a statement the family expressed their disgust at the attempted cover-up, and, vindicated by the open verdict, were seeking legal advice as to the possibility of taking the breach of their son's right to life to the European Court of Human Rights.