Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had
with the Crown Prosecution Service on guidance issued to
prosecutors on intentional shooting by police, and on the
application of the evidential and public interest stages of the
test to decide whether to prosecute police officers in the case
of the discharge of firearms.
(Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my
name on the Order Paper, I draw the House's attention to my
interests as set out in the register.
The Attorney-General () (Lab)
My Lords, charging decisions made by the CPS are rightly
independent and made in accordance with the Code for Crown
Prosecutors and the Director of Public Prosecutions' guidance to
prosecutors. I have invited the Director of Public Prosecutions
to review CPS guidance and processes in relation to charging
police officers for offences committed in the course of their
duties in order to consider whether any changes are desirable
within the existing legal framework. The review will conclude by
the end of the year.
(Con)
I welcome the sensible decision to continue with the previous
Government's police accountability review, including the
lessons-learned commitment. However, I would like to press the
Minister on three issues. First, while I endorse the default
presumption of anonymity in this small number of cases, an
explicit and robust evidential test should be in place should a
decision be made to deviate from this. Secondly, does he agree
that it is imperative that these inquiries by the CPS and the
IOPC are expedited in a reasonably timely and transparent fashion
for the benefit of all parties? Thirdly and finally, will he
undertake to ensure comprehensive and meaningful consultation
with the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police
Federation?
(Lab)
In respect of consultation with all relevant stakeholders across
the range of reviews that we are undertaking, we have taken the
measures agreed by the previous Government and we have gone
further, and the details of that were set out last week by my
right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place. In
respect of anonymity, the Home Secretary set out that that is a
measure we are going to take; there will be a presumption of
anonymity in those cases. Ultimately it will rest upon the
discretion of a trial judge.
(CB)
My Lords, first, will the Minister confirm whether the review
that is taking place will include a review of the Sergeant Blake
case and, if it does not, whether he would encourage the IOPC,
the CPS and perhaps the courts to consider how that case was
handled? Secondly, is that review going to consider what I regard
as the excellent proposal yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord
Carter? Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides a
defence to householders in certain circumstances when their
property is invaded. Should not police firearms officers—not
police officers in general—be given some kind of comfort and
defence in law when they exercise on our behalf these very
difficult decisions of challenging people with firearms who are
otherwise so dangerous?
(Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and I recognise the
great experience that he brings to bear. The intended reviews
will not look at individual cases but no doubt will look across
the board to see what lessons can be learned. In respect of
firearms officers, I echo the words of the Home Secretary and
indeed of my noble friend in this House last week: we in
this House all recognise and pay tribute to the extraordinary
risk that firearms officers take upon themselves in public
service to defend and protect all of us.
(LD)
Where a policeman has shot an unarmed man, allegedly in defence
of another policeman, does the Minister agree that whether his
action was objectively reasonable and proportionate in all the
circumstances should be determined not by other policemen, nor by
the Director of Public Prosecutions, but by 12 ordinary people of
diverse backgrounds, commonly called over 800 years “a jury”?
(Lab)
I do. However, it is worth pointing out to this House the
enormous care and expertise that are brought to bear whenever a
charging decision is made in a case about the discharge of
firearms by a police officer. First, it is brought and dealt with
by a specialist team within the CPS, trained in the area: the CPS
special crime division. Secondly, decisions in cases concerning
the discharge of firearms by police officers where a death arises
are always taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions because
that reflects the seriousness, care and attention given to such
cases, and quite rightly so.
(Con)
My Lords, to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, , during yesterday's debate
he and the noble Lord, , made valuable
points. The contention is that armed officers do not go out with
the intent to kill; they go out with the intent to protect the
public. Intent is an integral part of any murder charge, but by
the nature of their jobs police officers are forced to make
split-second decisions in reacting to circumstances. Will the
Minister commit to looking at the laws in this area in order to
protect officers and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter,
noted, to introducing defences similar to those available to
house- holders when using force to defend themselves?
(Lab)
My Lords, it is not the intention to review the law of homicide.
It is the intention that the director will review the guidance
that is given to prosecutors when considering whether or not it
is appropriate to bring charges in such circumstances.
Prosecutors will do that in accordance with the code; it is the
guidance for that code that is going to be reviewed.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister give some context to this by providing
us with figures for the last five years on how often firearms
drawn by police officers in anger are discharged? How often does
that result in injury or death to the victim?
(Lab)
My Lords, it speaks to the enormous bravery of firearms officers
and the skill with which they discharge their duties that such
instances are very rare indeed. We should all, as I said before,
be thankful to those officers for that care and skill, and for
their levels of professionalism. I am afraid that I do not have
the precise figures to hand, but I will write this afternoon to
the noble Lord to provide him with those figures.
(CB)
My Lords, building on the points that my noble friends have made,
I wonder whether it is time to ask whether the guidance to
prosecutors is really sufficient in this area. As the noble Lord,
, said, in 2013 householders
were given a special defence when they use force in the home
where they honestly believe that the degree of force used is
reasonable. Is it not time to ask whether police officers should
be given some similar legal protection, perhaps with a new
offence of excessive force rather than murder, and a more
proportionate penalty, appropriate for police officers who put
their lives at risk to protect us all?
(Lab)
I urge your Lordships to look at the comprehensive package of
measures that the Home Secretary announced last week, which seek
to take away the tension that may be thought to exist currently
between, on the one hand, a lack of trust and confidence within
some communities in policing but, on the other hand, a lack of
confidence in those police officers in going about their daily
duties. These packages of measures seek to show that there need
be no tension between those two legitimate principles.
(GP)
My Lords, it is all very well to say that there should not be any
tension but, in fact, of course there is. One of the problems we
have is that firearms on British streets are very rare. That is
why a shooting has such a huge shock value to a lot of us. As the
Minister has said, certain communities feel that they bear the
brunt of police shootings, violence and, quite often,
persecution. Does the Minister agree that transparency is vital?
It should not look as though the whole system is closing off
against those communities.
(Lab)
I entirely agree. We will see from the package of measures that
many of them address the concerns that the noble Baroness has
raised.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister made a very good point, which is that we
all ought to consider the package that is offered in the round.
It is a comprehensive package, and not just about police firearms
officers, but surely the group whom we have to consider are the
firearms officers and what their view of it is. There are only
about 3,000 of them in the 67 million of us. The military do not
want to take on that responsibility and we have very few other
options. Their representations really need to be taken seriously
because should they change their minds about volunteering, we
will all have a problem.
(Lab)
I agree. Any consultation will need to take account of all
relevant stakeholders. When it comes to the use of firearms, that
will most certainly include the views of firearms officers.
