WIREDGOV

The debate surrounding police use of firearms has generated a number of myths and selective facts.

This week Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, in his call for greater public support of firearms officers, said that officers are increasingly being treated as suspects in our investigations.

But the facts don’t support this.

Since 2010 we’ve completed 24 firearms investigations, eight of which were fatalities.  In all but three of them, including six of the fatal shootings, no firearms officer was ever treated as a suspect: they were all treated as witnesses.

Sir Bernard also complained about the lengthy time it takes to investigate shootings. Timeliness of investigations is something about which both the police and the public are rightly concerned. But it is too easy to lay blame for delays solely at the door of the IPCC.  It is very clear that where police witnesses cooperate fully and early, we can complete our investigations much more quickly. By contrast, where they don’t – for example giving statements that simply say when they came on and off duty or refusing to answer questions at interview - it takes much longer. No-one benefits -whether they are police officers or bereaved families.

The investigation into the Met’s fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker in December 2015, in Wood Green, was completed within 12 months. That was despite the fact that only one key police witness chose to answer questions at interview (it took many weeks to get full accounts from the others), and that we were unable to get some vital evidence from the police for ten months.

We have proposed fresh guidance to get best evidence when someone dies or is seriously injured. It doesn’t treat police witnesses as suspects. It does aim to separate officers while they provide their first accounts, to prevent conferring and ensure that their accounts are not contaminated by other evidence. Doing it early ensures that we can secure necessary evidence. Separating witnesses ensures that we get the individual’s own account of what they did, saw and heard. Of course, in a major terrorist incident we would not expect to do this until the risk had passed.

 We will do our part to ensure that our investigations are both robust and timely, and the proposed guidance will help ensure this. Both are important for the police and the public. Rigorous independent scrutiny is not a threat: it is a protection.  If the police appear to shy away from this, there is a real risk to public trust.  As Sir Bernard has said, our police rarely discharge firearms, and even more rarely with fatal effect.  But when they do, it is in everyone’s interest that this is thoroughly investigated, with early and full cooperation from those involved.