Current Affairs Met Police

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Honestly, what else is there to do? I haven't sat through the trial, nor have you. I've read the reports, as you may have. So yes, we have to rely on the court.

As I said earlier, if you're willing to offer an objective alternative to this, go ahead. But I don't see one... so unless you're presuming the jury were wrong or biased?

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet that doesn't remove the ability to detain people due to reasonable suspicion they have committed an offence.

Again, at the time were there reasonable grounds to arrest him? Yes. Did the risk assessment warrant a hard stop based on said grounds and previous convictions?

Yes. This has all been reported. If someone is believed to have been involved in a shooting*, how do you expect the police to stop them?

"Please Sir, stop your car nicely?" It's fanciful, at best.

*a separate trial has added weight to the validity of this assessment at the time, which was my point.

I rather think the officers in question would have been extremely mindful he posed a threat.

I don't doubt the officer messed up. Murder? Maybe not. Manslaughter by virtue of perhaps panicking? Possibly.

Be very surprised if this fella ends up in active duty.

 

[TimmyOTool]

Nobody can say justice hasn’t been done in this case - CPS charge the officer with murder, officer named in press (totally unprecedented and politically motivated) and finally the officer is found not guilty by a jury of his peers after 3 hours of deliberation.

We entrust firearms officers to make life and death decisions within the blink of an eye and sadly this is sometimes of the consequence of that responsibility. Having seen the footage I can see no realistic alternative other than to shoot.

 

[PhilM]

Nobody can say justice hasn’t been done in this case - CPS charge the officer with murder, officer named in press (totally unprecedented and politically motivated) and finally the officer is found not guilty by a jury of his peers after 3 hours of deliberation.

We entrust firearms officers to make life and death decisions within the blink of an eye and sadly this is sometimes of the consequence of that responsibility. Having seen the footage I can see no realistic alternative other than to shoot.

Only this morning, there have been additional reporting restrictions have been lifted by the judge, which add additional context, but rightly kept from the jury.

 

[Harryflashman]

Nobody can say justice hasn’t been done in this case - CPS charge the officer with murder, officer named in press (totally unprecedented and politically motivated) and finally the officer is found not guilty by a jury of his peers after 3 hours of deliberation.

We entrust firearms officers to make life and death decisions within the blink of an eye and sadly this is sometimes of the consequence of that responsibility. Having seen the footage I can see no realistic alternative other than to shoot.

Is being named unprecedented? I’d suggest a defendant going through unidentified a trial is what would be unprecedented

 

[COYBL25]

Only this morning, there have been additional reporting restrictions have been lifted by the judge, which add additional context, but rightly kept from the jury.

Just out of interest, what are they ?

 

[PhilM]

Just out of interest, what are they ?

The jury weren't informed that:

- He'd have been charged with attempted murder / Sect 18. with intent, due to the shooting I mentioned earlier (I alluded to this a few weeks or months ago),
- Intelligence assessed him as the central figure in a serious crime gang, and anecdotally known as the main 'shooter' in their gang,
- He was facing trial in ten days, with the intention of imposing an injunction under the Serious Crime Act,
- He had previous convictions for violent offences, including firearms offences,
- Found with a balaclava and gun residue (potential cross contamination) after shooting,
- Police suspected he was the driver of the vehicle, but were not certain.

The press restrictions placed on the judge to not report on the above, although it was widely circulated in the area at the time.

Is being named unprecedented? I’d suggest a defendant going through unidentified a trial is what would be unprecedented

In these cases, it isn't common because if found not guilty, it could impact any future case involving him or any evidence he submits.

It's also for his and his family's protection because, if reports are to be believed, he's faced threats to his life that the judge did accept were severe.

 

[Harryflashman]

In these cases, it isn't common because if found not guilty, it could impact any future case involving him or any evidence he submits.

It's also for his and his family's protection because, if reports are to be believed, he's faced threats to his life that the judge did accept were severe.

Not being obtuse but can you point me in the direction of a case where the defendant was not identified during the trial ? particularly for the reasons you’ve given . I get before charge and I also get sometimes it’s extended plus withholding of addresses . I also understand there can be reporting restrictions so as to not prejudice future trials but anonymity in the circumstances you’ve described I’ve not heard of .

The shooting of harry Stanley who had the chair leg both named as was the fella who shot azelle Rodney . You seem to know what you’re talking about so I’m just wondering what cases anonymity was granted during trial

 

[PhilM]

Not being obtuse but can you point me in the direction of a case where the defendant was not identified during the trial ? particularly for the reasons you’ve given . I get before charge and I also get sometimes it’s extended plus withholding of addresses . I also understand there can be reporting restrictions so as to not prejudice future trials but anonymity in the circumstances you’ve described I’ve not heard of .

The shooting of harry Stanley who had the chair leg both named as was the fella who shot azelle Rodney . You seem to know what you’re talking about so I’m just wondering what cases anonymity was granted during trial

Firstly, you have to split it into IOPC, legal inquests and criminal prosecutions. If it's an investigation or inquest with firearms, the officer is very rarely named.

One example off the top of my head could be William Cameron. Here there was an inquest and criminal investigation, where the officer was not named in either.

If you compared this with non-firearms related criminal races, they can be named and often are; in fact, the police are keen to get it into the press.

In terms of Kaba, there was originally an anonymity order, which I was referring to as common in firearms use - I probably wasn't clear enough there.

For the Azelle Rodney officer, similarly reporting restrictions were eventually removed, and they even posted his picture, but they're imposed originally.

Like I said, I wasn't clear enough when saying their anonymity is originally given and retained unless it eventually gets to court, but it can still be kept.

Look at Soldier F in Bloody Sunday - his name is well-known, but there's an anonymity order still in place. The officers involved in Dalian Atkinson's death...

... were reported fairly quickly.

 

[Harryflashman]

Firstly, you have to split it into IOPC, legal inquests and criminal prosecutions. If it's an investigation or inquest with firearms, the officer is very rarely named.

One example off the top of my head could be William Cameron. Here there was an inquest and criminal investigation, where the officer was not named in either.

If you compared this with non-firearms related criminal races, they can be named and often are; in fact, the police are keen to get it into the press.

In terms of Kaba, there was originally an anonymity order, which I was referring to as common in firearms use - I probably wasn't clear enough there.

For the Azelle Rodney officer, similarly reporting restrictions were eventually removed, and they even posted his picture, but they're imposed originally.

Like I said, I wasn't clear enough when saying their anonymity is originally given and retained unless it eventually gets to court, but it can still be kept.

Look at Soldier F in Bloody Sunday - his name is well-known, but there's an anonymity order still in place. The officers involved in Dalian Atkinson's death...

... were reported fairly quickly.

I take your point and you can see I sort of agree anonymity pre trial is not at all unusual , if the fella who shot Kaba hadn’t been named during his trial it would have been unprecedented which was the point I was making.

As regards soldier F that is a good example but fair to say fairly extraordinary circumstances.

 

[gonetomorrow]

I've just finished watching a long tv series about the MET and the daily pressure they face doing their jobs. It's absolutely incredible what they do while remaining the right side of the law. Every incident is now covered by several phone cameras from all angles. They have to be perfect in everything they do and say. Of course we expect nothing less, but sometimes I feel there is a huge unreasonable hatred for them in large parts of the city.

 

[Eidean]

Horrendous ending for everyone involved but it sounds like, with the minimum information we have, the officer rightly shouldn’t be found guilty.

Individual & vehicle involved in several shootings has decided to drive towards armed response officers, who have a split second decision to make.

If he honestly believes his life is in danger he’s legally allowed to take that shot, which I think anyone else would believe it was

 

[COYBL25]

The jury weren't informed that:

- He'd have been charged with attempted murder / Sect 18. with intent, due to the shooting I mentioned earlier (I alluded to this a few weeks or months ago),
- Intelligence assessed him as the central figure in a serious crime gang, and anecdotally known as the main 'shooter' in their gang,
- He was facing trial in ten days, with the intention of imposing an injunction under the Serious Crime Act,
- He had previous convictions for violent offences, including firearms offences,
- Found with a balaclava and gun residue (potential cross contamination) after shooting,
- Police suspected he was the driver of the vehicle, but were not certain.

The press restrictions placed on the judge to not report on the above, although it was widely circulated in the area at the time.


In these cases, it isn't common because if found not guilty, it could impact any future case involving him or any evidence he submits.

It's also for his and his family's protection because, if reports are to be believed, he's faced threats to his life that the judge did accept were severe.

Thanks for that.

I suspected by the way things were being reported, that there was a gangland element to it.

 

[COYBL25]

The jury weren't informed that:

- He'd have been charged with attempted murder / Sect 18. with intent, due to the shooting I mentioned earlier (I alluded to this a few weeks or months ago),
- Intelligence assessed him as the central figure in a serious crime gang, and anecdotally known as the main 'shooter' in their gang,
- He was facing trial in ten days, with the intention of imposing an injunction under the Serious Crime Act,
- He had previous convictions for violent offences, including firearms offences,
- Found with a balaclava and gun residue (potential cross contamination) after shooting,
- Police suspected he was the driver of the vehicle, but were not certain.

The press restrictions placed on the judge to not report on the above, although it was widely circulated in the area at the time.


In these cases, it isn't common because if found not guilty, it could impact any future case involving him or any evidence he submits.

It's also for his and his family's protection because, if reports are to be believed, he's faced threats to his life that the judge did accept were severe.

The question I would ask, is why having been charged with attempted murder the week before, why wasn’t he on remand ?

The lad was obviously a serious and dangerous criminal, with access to firearms, loads of previous for violent offences and had been charged with an offence one down from murder.

Surely he should’ve been taken n custody on the grounds of likely to commit further serious offences and for the safety / interference of any witnesses pending any trial.

If he’d been on remand he’d still be alive too.

 

[Bedfordblue]

The jury weren't informed that:

- He'd have been charged with attempted murder / Sect 18. with intent, due to the shooting I mentioned earlier (I alluded to this a few weeks or months ago),
- Intelligence assessed him as the central figure in a serious crime gang, and anecdotally known as the main 'shooter' in their gang,
- He was facing trial in ten days, with the intention of imposing an injunction under the Serious Crime Act,
- He had previous convictions for violent offences, including firearms offences,
- Found with a balaclava and gun residue (potential cross contamination) after shooting,
- Police suspected he was the driver of the vehicle, but were not certain.

The press restrictions placed on the judge to not report on the above, although it was widely circulated in the area at the time.


In these cases, it isn't common because if found not guilty, it could impact any future case involving him or any evidence he submits.

It's also for his and his family's protection because, if reports are to be believed, he's faced threats to his life that the judge did accept were severe.

 

[PhilM]

The question I would ask, is why having been charged with attempted murder the week before, why wasn’t he on remand ?

The lad was obviously a serious and dangerous criminal, with access to firearms, loads of previous for violent offences and had been charged with an offence one down from murder.

Surely he should’ve been taken n custody on the grounds of likely to commit further serious offences and for the safety / interference of any witnesses pending any trial.

If he’d been on remand he’d still be alive too.

He hadn't been charged. The shooting was less than a week before, and through the investigation the car he was in was seen heading to and fleeing the scene.

Kaba, alongside a few other known gang members, were known to drive the vehicle, and the intelligence suggested he may have been the gunman.

This was why the car had a marker on it. This is why the stop was authorised, for as you say, he needed to be taken into custody for a prompt investigation.

It's also why the driver of the vehicle perceived a risk to the public, and not merely the police. Based on all evidence available, he'd have got a lengthy custodial.