IPCC says it must consider prosecutions over armed police shootings
|
Version 0 of 1. Failing to hold a proper inquiry after armed police shoot a suspect would be a threat to democracy, said the police watchdog as it published new rules on how serious incidents should be investigated. The IPCC said it had to keep open the possibility of bringing prosecutions against armed officers and produced guidance that said police should not be allowed to confer before, during or after making their statements about a shooting. Sarah Green, deputy chair of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “It is both a responsibility and a privilege to bear arms and with that comes accountability, in a civil democracy.” She added: “If you don’t accept there has to be an independent investigation, that does not sound like a democracy. It is fundamental to why we are here. If you can’t consider a possibility of criminal proceedings, that is ridiculous.” The new guidance has been argued over for over two years, with both chief constables and leaders of rank and file officers warning it makes armed officers feel they are unfairly being treated as suspects. Green seemed to criticise the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers in England and Wales, saying: “We have decided to publish the draft guidance to counter some of the myths the Police Federation are putting out.” Outgoing Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe last week called for more trust and less suspicion of armed officers, also seen as a thinly veiled attack on the IPCC, and warnedof future problems in getting enough firearms officers. Traditionally police in Britain are unarmed and volunteer to carry a gun. Green said while police leaders such as Hogan-Howe had a tricky job ensuring they had enough armed officers, ”what would be helpful from the police leadership is if they talked about what is really happening”. Officers involved in shootings will also not be allowed to see any body-worn video before making statements, according to the watchdog’s plans. Steve White, chair of the Police Federation, said the new rules, if accepted by government, would make it harder to get officers to volunteer for armed duties. “I have serious concerns that the police service will have difficulties attracting volunteers to carry firearms unless they have an IPCC they have trust and confidence in. At the moment they are far from it. Our position is officers are witnesses or suspects, there can’t be a half way house,” he said. Green said she doubted there would be a walkout by armed officers if the new rules are adopted, adding: “I don’t think so.” In 24 firearms investigations since 2010, the IPCC said that officers have become suspects in three. Government and police chiefs want a big boost to the number of armed officers in Britain to counter the threat of a terrorist gun attack, such as that which killed 130 people in Paris in November 2015. The IPCC original plans called for the officers to make a full account after a serious incident before going off duty, instead of having 48 hours, which police say was necessary to recover from any trauma. That has been dropped and instead officers are being asked to give certain details to assist IPCC investigators. When the IPCC plans first emerged in 2014, a survey found that two-thirds of armed officers in the Met “would think seriously” about handing in their weapons if the changes went ahead. The revised IPCC plans went last month to home secretary Amber Rudd for a decision on implementation. A home office spokesperson added: “The IPCC has submitted their updated statutory guidance on post incident processes. The home secretary will make a decision in due course.” |