Father disputes police case for shooting son in Brixton standoff
|
Version 0 of 1. The father of a man shot by police in London has said there was no need for officers to open fire because his son could have been persuaded to surrender peacefully. Police fired four shots at Nathaniel Brophy, 34, after a standoff lasting seven hours, on 21 August, in Brixton. At the time Brophy was being evicted for rent arrears, and armed police are thought to have believed he was posing a threat to them or others when they opened fire. Brophy’s family said three of the bullets hit him and he required three operations to save his life. Speaking for the first time, Brophy’s father, Patrice Duval, said he was rushing to the scene to talk his son into surrendering when officers took action. “There was no need to shoot him, I’d have talked to him and he’d have come out,” Duval said. An official investigation into the shooting by the Independent Police Complaints Commission will examine whether Brophy had a weapon in his hand when police opened fire. He has told his family he was not holding a gun at the time. IPCC investigators said they had recovered a “firearm” from the scene, and told the Guardian it was found outside the flat where Brophy had been. The family said the firearm was a 0.177 air rifle and that Brophy had told them he was shot while surrendering. In claims sure to be disputed by police, Duval said: “My son did not have a gun. He said he had his hands up.” Brophy remains in hospital and has been arrested by the Metropolitan police on suspicion of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. Duval told the Guardian he still does not know why his son, who is mixed race, was shot and he was critical of the IPCC. Police and community relations around Brixton have historically been tense and the shooting of Brophy in August caused concern among communities in the south London area. The IPCC has yet to officially release its findings. The home secretary, Theresa May, has made clear she wants families and communities to have greater confidence in the police complaints system. Brophy was shot after a housing officer went to the flat he previously lived in, at 9.45am on 21 August and found him inside. His family believe Brophy had returned to the property to collect his belongings after court proceedings to evict him. Police accompanying the housing officer believed Brophy had a handgun and a standoff followed, with Brophy surrounded by armed officers. Duval said he had been told his son was surrounded by armed officers and called 999 to tell police he was rushing to the scene to talk him into surrendering peacefully. At around 4.45pm officers opened fire. Duval, 52, said his son, who is still in hospital had denied threatening anyone: “He said: ‘Dad, I never thought they were going to shoot me. It felt like I got hit by a hammer. They [the officers] said to come out because we are concerned about your wellbeing.’” His family said Brophy had fallen behind with his rent because he was too proud to claim benefits after losing his job as a delivery driver, as a result of life-changing injuries sustained in a violent attack. He had been assaulted by a man with a hammer as he cycled across Balham Common in 2010. His attacker was not caught and the injuries meant Brophy had to surrender his driving licence. Duval said his son had “never been part of a gang; he was polite and quiet”. He also said his family were not anti-police and he had two close relatives serving in the Met. The IPCC said the officers who opened fire were being treated as “significant witnesses”, not suspects, at this stage of the investigation. In a new development, officers did not confer while writing up their statements about the incident, the IPCC said. Instead they wrote up their statements while sitting in the same room, with an IPCC official monitoring them. After previous police shootings, officers have discussed the leadup to a shooting, sometimes for many hours, before writing up their individual recollections of the actual confrontation with a suspect. The issue of officers talking to each other as they write up their statements after high-profile incidents has been highly controversial and even police chiefs have recognised it damages public confidence. Some police officers have said it leads to officers producing the best evidence they can, but critics say it leaves the impression of wrongdoing. The IPCC has long wanted the practice to end. After the shooting of Mark Duggan in 2011 in Tottenham, north London, firearms officers spent eight hours in a room writing their statements and “conferring”, with all including the same mistaken detail. In 2014, after the inquest into Duggan’s death, Det Supt Mark Welton, the then head of the Met’s post-firearms procedures, said there was a widespread view that change was needed. “You can’t have a process the cops are confident in and the people of London are not,” he said. “You are trying to defend something nobody else likes apart from yourself. These processes do not support the officers or make them appear truthful witnesses. I’m not surprised the family and the public don’t like it, as it is administered by the police.” The IPCC said it was keen to talk to Brophy’s family, but that no formal meeting had taken place. “An IPCC investigator met with the family, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, at the hospital. He explained the IPCC’s role and as much information as was available at that time. “Since then, several requests to meet with the family formally, sent via their solicitor, have not been replied to. The IPCC are still keen to meet with the family at the earliest opportunity to help explain our role and our investigation.” A number of officers were wearing video body cameras and the footage will be studied by the investigators. In a statement released the day after the shooting, the Metropolitan police said: “At 09:45, unarmed officers attempted to enter the property. As they were doing so a man was seen emerging from one of the rooms in the property. “Officers withdrew from the property and a police negotiator, London ambulance service and firearm officers were called to the scene. Shortly before 16:46 the man was shot by police outside of the premises.” |