Jurors at the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest yesterday rejected claims that police had acted lawfully, bringing to a close the three-month hearing.

Jurors at the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest yesterday rejected claims that police had acted lawfully, bringing to a close a three-month hearing branded "a whitewash" by the Brazilian's family.

An open verdict was returned on Mr de Menezes's death - the most critical option available, after coroner Sir Michael Wright ruled out unlawful killing.

Maria Otone de Menezes, mother of Jean Charles, said she felt "reborn" by the verdict, and a family statement welcomed it as "a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told".

Since Mr de Menezes was shot by marksmen at Stockwell Underground station in July 2005, police have maintained that the Brazilian was lawfully killed as part of a counter-terrorism operation. Police said Mr de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was mistaken for failed bomber Hussain Osman in the wake of the suicide attacks that devastated London.

Mr de Menezes was under surveillance because officers mistakenly believed he was a member of an Islamic gang plotting further attacks on the capital's transport network. Inadequate intelligence was one of the factors found by the jury to have contributed to the chain of events, which ended when police marksmen shot Mr de Menezes in the head seven times in front of south London commuters.

The jury had to consider 12 crucial questions during the inquest. In their answers, they dismissed the evidence of senior police officials and identified six key areas where the police were at fault.

They found that officers had not shouted the words "armed police" at the suspect, and that Mr de Menezes had not moved towards one of the marksmen before he was shot. The open verdict was returned with a majority of eight to two, and of the 12 questions all but two were answered unanimously.

Responding to the verdict, Harriet Wistrich, the de Menezes lawyer, suggested that there was evidence of perjury by certain officers and urged the Crown Prosecution Service to look at the matter again.

But the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said Ms Wistrich's call for a perjury inquiry was "wrong".