The law must change to protect armed officers
4 min read
The police do not expect immunity from accountability. But the law must show compassion for those who put themselves at risk to keep the public safe, writes Lord Hogan-Howe
The police in the UK are generally unarmed – one of a handful in the world able to make that proud claim. Even in Singapore, which has the most severe gun control laws in the world, and rarely experiences firearms crime, the police are armed. I once asked the Commissioner of Singapore why this is the case – he explained his officers would not do their job without a gun.
Our 120,000 police officers have only 6,500 specialist firearms officers in England and Wales. They are all volunteers with no extra reward for their extra responsibility. In the year ending March 2017 there were 15,705 firearms operations. The officers discharged their weapons on 10 occasions and that includes the terrorist attack at Westminster. So there is no evidence of them being trigger-happy.
Yet should they fire and harm or kill they can expect a long period of uncertainty and investigation, often taking years. Recently we heard that the police are struggling to get volunteers to carry firearms. I wonder why?
As Metropolitan Police Commissioner I raised concerns with David Cameron about the legal position of armed officers, and in December 2015, following the terrorist attack in Paris, the then-Prime Minister ordered a review.
He understood immediately that we needed more firearms officers to deal with marauding terrorists. He also understood my concern that we may struggle to get the necessary volunteers given the way officers were feeling about the treatment of their colleagues when they had shot someone. Two and a half years on, with the issue unresolved, I believe the time is right to complete that review.
The police do not expect immunity from accountability, investigation or prosecution. But I argue the law should give them some comfort that they will be given the benefit of the doubt when making split-second decisions.
They should expect the investigators to be competent and initially treat them as witnesses rather than suspects.
Finally, the officers and family members of those who are shot should expect a quick investigation. It provides the facts for the families and is an open and accountable process. But justice delayed is justice denied.
Criminal murder investigations take months not years. The delays in police firearms cases are initiated by slow investigations. The IPOC have a cab rank approach to allocating theses complex investigations to the available teams rather than a specialist squad. I would never send the shoplifting squad to a murder inquiry. The team they do allocate has limited resources. The decision making process that follows is sequential and slow.
Their file can be passed to the Crown Prosecutor to assess criminality. A negative decision by CPS may be appealed. If there is no criminality the IPOC decide whether to pass back to force concerned to consider if there is misconduct. If the force decides no misconduct then the IPOC may direct a misconduct hearing. Finally there will be a Coroners Inquest if the person who has been shot has died.
An option for improving the length of time involved may be to have the decision making carried out in parallel rather sequentially or at least to give indicative deadlines to priories these cases in the system.
The 56 million people in England and Wales rely on the 6,500 to go forward on our behalf to face criminals and those who may be mentally ill. We ask them to keep us safe.
When their own life is in danger they have to react quickly, decisively and with good judgement. We cannot afford for them to be concerned that for years to come they will be second guessed in minute detail.
We have the terrible problem that we employ human beings who can only work within the limits of human physiology rather than the forensic objectivity of the law.
In my view, it is time that the law was updated to show officers the human compassion that their extraordinary courage deserves.
Lord Hogan-Howe is a crossbench peer and former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. His Oral Question is today at 2.30pm.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
