I don't think it'll ever work though TJ, the ability for political influence to be brought to bear is too great.
As is the will of leaders to allow it to happen to protect their own arse.
I also think people have been losing a sense of proportion about this and Armed Officers in general.
There were 18,395 firearms operations in the year ending 31 March 2023.
Of the 18,395 firearms operations, 92% (16,971) involved an armed response vehicle (ARV).
There were 10 incidents in which police firearms were intentionally discharged (fired) at persons in the year ending 31 March 2023.
Of those 10 incidents there were 3 fatalities. Kaba was one of those 3 fatalities.
I see your position TJ but the point is that any member of the public faces the same scrutiny, and police have no higher power other than wearing a uniform. My dad served 30 years in a wide variety of roles. I think he would have been comfortable with the current situation. To wear that uniform in the first place is admirable, to take on firearms responsibility much more so.
I think if the police have guns, and use them, then they should be available for scrutiny, and if found wrong then prosecuted. I certainly dont like the notion of armed police holding that call to ransom, by threatening to 'lay down their guns' if an officer is subject to prosecution.
In the US, plenty of officers have ended up in prison for wantonly shooting unarmed 'criminals'(in commas as alleged criminals)
Given that the officer only needs a belief that lives were in danger its incredibly hard to get prosecutions
It isn't that simple. Every police officer has a body-worn video (BWV). Potentially there are aircraft above (piloted and not-piloted). Local CCTV, video doorbells, etc, etc
BWV is recommended by HMI and the College of Policing and not using it when exercising any police power must be explained
It isn't enough to believe; your actions will be recorded and studied from multiple angles
I think if the police have guns, and use them, then they should be available for scrutiny, and if found wrong then prosecuted.
Standards are high for a reason. If someone is wrong then they should be properly investigated; I doubt that many would have a problem with that
I certainly dont like the notion of armed police holding that call to ransom, by threatening to ‘lay down their guns’ if an officer is subject to prosecution.
I don't think that's the case. It's taken two years for Martyn Blake to be tried with a "Not Guilty" verdict within three hours; that's quick when juries have deliberated for nearer three weeks
During those two years he and his family will have been through mental hell with a criminal bounty allegedly on his head. Why would you want to be pilloried like that for doing your job?
It isn’t necessary for a cop to be prosecuted to ensure the public interest. In Scotland a police shooting will result in a Fatal Accident Enquiry
I think that's analogous to an inquest by HM Coroner.
If the case is presented without criminal actions then the Coroner will run proceedings.
This shooting would be an inquest that must have a jury and HM Coroners can give "Narrative Conclusions"
The Coroner can give a verdict of "unlawful killing" on the lower threshold of "balance of probabilities" and will notify the DPP, who works to the higher criminal threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".
If the verdict is unlawful killing and criminal prosecution follows then the inquest will be concluded by the Crown Court because it's a higher court.
Deer poachers around here tend to gut the deer, cut off what joints they want and leave the rest behind, not nice to find it on the trail and I should imagine not great for all the dog walkers.....................
Why would you want to be pilloried like that for doing your job?
You think that being prosecuted under the law is the same as some criminal group putting a bounty on an officers head ? **** knows how you came to that conclusion.
The evidence comes before the public interest…
* “Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge.” The fact that the jury came to a verdict so quickly tells a story
* “If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.”
I think its wrong to say that the CPS got it wrong with the evidential test, and realistic prospect of convicition before the trial:
- they don't know for sure what the crown witnesses will say or how they will come across in the witness box
- they have no real idea what any defence witnesses will say
- if sufficiency of evidence really was the problem the Judge would have prevented the decision going to the jury
Three hours is fairly quick for a lengthy murder trial to reach its conclusion but by no means exceptional. Even if it had taken them only 30 minutes, it would not have been a certain sign that the trial was flawed. Similarly just because a jury takes multiple days to reach its conclusion doesn't actually mean that the decision was a close call.
The point is not to threaten individual officers with criminal sanction unless its deliberate action.
The mens rea required for murder requires the action to have been deliberate, its quite difficult to imaging how an armed officer shoots someone they were trying to detain unintentionally. The question for the jury is whether this fell into the realm of reasonable force / self defence.
Given that the officer only needs a belief that lives were in danger its incredibly hard to get prosecutions.
Actually, they need a belief that lives were in immediate danger and there was no reasonable alternative.
Far better to actually find out what went wrong to allow adjustments to recruitment / tactics etc etc to prevent further shootings.
1. An inquest could now follow to establish those things?
2. An inquest might be more likely to get helpful answers once the prospect of prosecution is removed - there's no requirement to incriminate yourself at a FAI (and I assume Coroner's inquest are the same).
3. What part of the media coverage you have heard about this incident makes you think there is a recruitment / tactical issue in this case?
A separate legal stream for the prosecution or investigation of police officers invites a perception of bias.
I agree. We can't have an exemption from murder charges because someone happens to be wearing a police uniform when they do it, even if they only end up in that situation through red mist, poor training, and weak briefings. Armed officers must expect that when they pull the trigger there IS an investigation with potential serious consequences not just a "what can we learn from this" inquiry.
BUT I'm not 100% opposed to anonymity for firearms officers, but then I'd actually say that should probably be the case for most accused. A presumption of innocence should probably require the judge to hear why the world needs to know you were accused of a crime (there will be cases where that is in the interest of justice), obviously different after conviction.
What part of the media coverage you have heard about this incident makes you think there is a recruitment / tactical issue in this case?
Nothing in particular - I was talking generalities. It is however pretty obvious to me that lives were not in immediate danger - the car was boxed in. So something went wrong in the decision making process to pull the trigger
What I want to see is truthful evidence given so that we actually find out what went wrong. At the moment we are not finding out because the risk of prosecution means the oifficers will slant their evidence. Again I say - do we want to see prosecutions of officers which I can never remeber a sucessful one - or do we want to find out why these happen? We cannot have both
I did not say blanket immunity - indeed I said the opposite
Edit - meaning if they shoot someone in the back as they are running away then a prosecution is fair - thats the sort of thing I meant by deliberate rather than in this case a misjudgement
It is however pretty obvious to me that lives were not in immediate danger – the car was boxed in.
Not in the bodycam footage I saw on the news reports?
Transcript of the court evidence I didn't follow it closely tho
He was not well boxed in, but it still seems pretty rash to me to kill him. This is the first I've seen of the footage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6245454rj3o
You think that being prosecuted under the law is the same as some criminal group putting a bounty on an officers head ? **** knows how you came to that conclusion.
That isn't my conclusion. That's your interpretation
Even if it had taken them only 30 minutes, it would not have been a certain sign that the trial was flawed.
I didn't say that the trial was flawed. It speaks to the decision to go to trial...
1. An inquest could now follow to establish those things?
The inquest was opened and adjourned on 2nd October 2022. Please see my post above for one route to conclude it
I think its wrong to say that the CPS got it wrong with the evidential test, and realistic prospect of convicition before the trial:
– they don’t know for sure what the crown witnesses will say or how they will come across in the witness box
– they have no real idea what any defence witnesses will say
– if sufficiency of evidence really was the problem the Judge would have prevented the decision going to the jury
That's why there's a criminal investigation, directed by the CPS for serious cases such as this
That’s why there’s a criminal investigation, directed by the CPS for serious cases such as this
No, the CPS barrister might have all the prosecution statements at his disposal, including perhaps having spoken to some key witnesses but they really don’t know which words will come out the witnesses mouth in the witness box, they are not allowed to coach or rehearse witnesses. The defence barrister will want to cross examine those witnesses, the prosecutor can guess the sort of questions that might be asked and perhaps the sort of answers the witness might give, but they can’t control the questions. Moreover they can’t control the demeanour of the witness in the witness box - do they appear certain, too confident, vague, confused, contradictory, arrogant. All of that plays a very important part in how Juries treat that evidence.
they will know who the likely defence witnesses will be, but until the day the defence case starts (by which time the crown case is closed, you can’t add extra prosecution witnesses), but potentially not much idea what exactly they will say which might undermine their case. They don’t know if the accused will give evidence themselves - often the defence don’t even know that at the start of the trial.
a reasonable prospect of a conviction doesn’t mean a very good bet, it doesn’t even mean more likely than not. About 80% of court cases result in a conviction, but over 65% of cases are guilty plea - so cases that get to a trial day are slightly more likely the person to walk free.
All of that plays a very important part in how Juries treat that evidence.
What are you implying? Commit every defendant to Crown Court just in case the jury likes/doesn't like certain witnesses?
I think that you're demeaning the extremely experienced criminal Barristers (that this country undervalues) who make judgements according to their briefings from CPS lawyers, the evidence and the wishes of the victim
so cases that get to a trial day are slightly more likely the person to walk free
Because they're the ones who are (or believe themselves to be) not guilty. The rest take the discounted sentence and plead guilty
This practitioner is leaving the room 🙂
