theguardian :
Firearms officers who shoot and kill suspects should be free from automatic criminal investigation in exchange for losing the right to stay silent when questioned, a former Scotland Yard chief has said.
Speaking after David Cameron announced a review into the legal protection afforded police who use “shoot-to-kill” authority, Brian Paddick said all public officials had a “duty to give an account of their actions”.
The former Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner made the intervention as the inquiry was requested in light of police concerns over the powers they have to protect the public from a Paris-style terror attack.
Paddick, who is now the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, said: “Police officers who shoot people should not be
automatically treated as criminal suspects, in return for not having the right to silence criminal suspects have, up until the point that a case becomes criminal.
“Public servants have a duty to give an account of their actions. If firearms officers believe it is likely they will face criminal investigation then it is understandable they will be reluctant to be open in interview. The concern among firearms officers is they make split second decisions in very difficult circumstances, but you can’t have police officers above the law especially if they use lethal force.”
The former officer said the government’s review into shoot-to-kill must be held in public, saying: “A review behind closed doors does not build public confidence. Unless there is public confidence in the outcome there is no point doing it.”
The inquiry is likely to be controversial because it comes in the same week that an officer was arrested and interviewed under caution as part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into the death of Jermaine Baker. The 28-year-old, from Tottenham, north London, died after being shot during an operation against an alleged attempt to spring two offenders from a prison van near Wood Green, north London.
It also comes after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn expressed reservations about the idea of a shoot-to-kill policy in relation to terrorist incidents, causing senior party figures to say they disagreed. He later clarified that he would authorise the use of lethal force against terrorists in the UK in exceptional circumstances if he was prime minister.
Corbyn warned that Cameron’s review could damage community relations and raised fears it was a political stunt. But Angela Eagle, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said there could be a case for reforming the rules around police use of firearms, stressing the need for a balance. She said: “There have to be safeguards because we know what happens when people are shot wrongly … but we also need to give our armed police the confidence if they’re dealing with a marauding terrorist of the sort we saw in Paris that they can get that person down and get them on the ground and save life.”
Meanwhile, Paddick’s intervention highlights different opinions on shoot-to-kill within the police force. The former officer fell out with some of his bosses after an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead after being mistaken for a terrorist.
Paddick went on to give evidence for the family of de Menezes at the inquest into his death. The Brazilian was shot dead on 22 July 2005 by police who believed he was a suicide bomber and thus had to be killed as quickly as possible. He was wholly innocent but a string of blunders led him to be held down by one officer while others repeatedly shot him in the head from point-blank range.
The officers involved in his fatal shooting did not face criminal charges, but at an Old Bailey criminal trial, the Met as an institution was found guilty of endangering public safety. The then Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, tried to block independent scrutiny by the IPCC on the grounds it interfered with a terrorism investigation. He backed down after senior home office officials told him the law meant the IPCC had to investigate.
Responding to the announcement of a review this weekend, a spokesman for the Met said: “The MPS [Metropolitan police service] is aware of the review and strongly supports the prime minister’s decision to re-examine the legal protection for armed police officers. These officers volunteer to do a vital and unique job on behalf of society. We ask them to move forward and confront terrorists and criminals who may be armed with automatic weapons. It is important for them to know they have the full support of the public for the split-second decisions they have to take.”
Firearms officers who shoot and kill suspects should be free from automatic criminal investigation in exchange for losing the right to stay silent when questioned, a former Scotland Yard chief has said.
Speaking after David Cameron announced a review into the legal protection afforded police who use “shoot-to-kill” authority, Brian Paddick said all public officials had a “duty to give an account of their actions”.
The former Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner made the intervention as the inquiry was requested in light of police concerns over the powers they have to protect the public from a Paris-style terror attack.
Paddick, who is now the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, said: “Police officers who shoot people should not be
automatically treated as criminal suspects, in return for not having the right to silence criminal suspects have, up until the point that a case becomes criminal.
“Public servants have a duty to give an account of their actions. If firearms officers believe it is likely they will face criminal investigation then it is understandable they will be reluctant to be open in interview. The concern among firearms officers is they make split second decisions in very difficult circumstances, but you can’t have police officers above the law especially if they use lethal force.”
The former officer said the government’s review into shoot-to-kill must be held in public, saying: “A review behind closed doors does not build public confidence. Unless there is public confidence in the outcome there is no point doing it.”
The inquiry is likely to be controversial because it comes in the same week that an officer was arrested and interviewed under caution as part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into the death of Jermaine Baker. The 28-year-old, from Tottenham, north London, died after being shot during an operation against an alleged attempt to spring two offenders from a prison van near Wood Green, north London.
It also comes after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn expressed reservations about the idea of a shoot-to-kill policy in relation to terrorist incidents, causing senior party figures to say they disagreed. He later clarified that he would authorise the use of lethal force against terrorists in the UK in exceptional circumstances if he was prime minister.
Corbyn warned that Cameron’s review could damage community relations and raised fears it was a political stunt. But Angela Eagle, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said there could be a case for reforming the rules around police use of firearms, stressing the need for a balance. She said: “There have to be safeguards because we know what happens when people are shot wrongly … but we also need to give our armed police the confidence if they’re dealing with a marauding terrorist of the sort we saw in Paris that they can get that person down and get them on the ground and save life.”
Meanwhile, Paddick’s intervention highlights different opinions on shoot-to-kill within the police force. The former officer fell out with some of his bosses after an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead after being mistaken for a terrorist.
Paddick went on to give evidence for the family of de Menezes at the inquest into his death. The Brazilian was shot dead on 22 July 2005 by police who believed he was a suicide bomber and thus had to be killed as quickly as possible. He was wholly innocent but a string of blunders led him to be held down by one officer while others repeatedly shot him in the head from point-blank range.
The officers involved in his fatal shooting did not face criminal charges, but at an Old Bailey criminal trial, the Met as an institution was found guilty of endangering public safety. The then Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, tried to block independent scrutiny by the IPCC on the grounds it interfered with a terrorism investigation. He backed down after senior home office officials told him the law meant the IPCC had to investigate.
Responding to the announcement of a review this weekend, a spokesman for the Met said: “The MPS [Metropolitan police service] is aware of the review and strongly supports the prime minister’s decision to re-examine the legal protection for armed police officers. These officers volunteer to do a vital and unique job on behalf of society. We ask them to move forward and confront terrorists and criminals who may be armed with automatic weapons. It is important for them to know they have the full support of the public for the split-second decisions they have to take.”
