Leading article: A devastating failure, and a damning judgment

When the decision was taken not to prosecute individual officers over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, many felt the Metropolitan Police was being let off the hook, not least members of the Brazilian electrician's family. The Crown Prosecution Service chose instead to bring a case against the Metropolitan Police on one count of breaching health and safety legislation – a move that hardly seemed adequate to address the erroneous shooting of an innocent man. The bad name that health and safety provisions have gained as a result of overzealous application only increased doubts about whether this was the best way to proceed.

Yesterday, in a verdict praised by the judge, the jury found the Met guilty of unnecessarily putting the public at risk. That verdict, and the trial that preceded it, should allay many misgivings. To have prosecuted one or more officers would have been invidious. Those who shot Mr de Menezes and those who ordered the operation acted in the sincere belief that they were protecting the safety of Londoners. It was the day after a failed attempt to cause explosions on the capital's Underground, and only two weeks after suicide bombers had claimed more than 50 lives. This was a case of mistaken identity that coincided with an unprecedented state of alert. It was understandable that no one wanted to take any chances.

Related articles

• De Menezes shooting: Police guilty of 'catastrophic errors'
• A baffling litany of bad luck, tragic errors and panic in high places
• Calls mount for Met commissioner to quit

All that said, the operation was horribly botched from the start. There was also an unconscionable delay before the Metropolitan Police owned up to the mistake. For all these reasons, the case needed to be heard in a court of law and, while health and safety legislation might not seem the most obvious vehicle, the trial provided its own vindication, shining a light into recesses that were overdue for judicial and public scrutiny.

The verdict constituted a devastating judgement on the performance of the Metropolitan Police on that July day two years ago. It emerged that detectives were uncertain from the start whether the man they observed leaving the block of flats that morning was their suspect. Senior officers then forsook their agreed plan, while firearms teams were not properly briefed and in the wrong place. In many respects the failings were the old bureaucratic ones of planning and communication. But the cumulative effect was that a suspected suicide bomber managed to reach a London Underground platform without being apprehended. At that point, the Brazilian's fate was sealed.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, insisted yesterday that the verdict reflected a response to events "on a single day in extraordinary circumstances". Because the failures were not, in his view, systemic, he saw no reason to resign. We beg to differ. The death of Mr de Menezes was the result of a comprehensive systems failure. Of course, the circumstances were unprecedented, and, of course, the atmosphere was fraught. But these are precisely the sort of conditions in which the emergency services are tested, and it behoves the most senior officer to accept responsibility.

Sir Ian has not had a happy time at the Met, and this is not the first time the quality of his leadership has been questioned. His tenure has been marked by hints of weakness and a disposition towards politicking. Before the trial opened, he warned that a guilty verdict would have profound implications for policing, implying that it could jeopardise the anti-terrorist effort. The judge, rightly, told the jury that their concern should be with the conduct of the Met on that one day. Their verdict might thus be circumscribed, but the faults it exposed are more far-reaching. The buck stops with Sir Ian; his position is untenable.