The Metropolitan Police firearms officer who shot dead a father-of-two during an operation to foil a prison break can face misconduct proceedings, judges have ruled.
Jermaine Baker, 28, from Tottenham, was fatally shot at close range as he sat in the front passenger seat of a stolen Audi A6 near Wood Green Crown Court in December 2015.
The officer who pulled the trigger – known as W80 – was part of a police team charged with intercepting an attempt to break a dangerous prisoner out of a prison custody van.
At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, judges delivered a landmark ruling on a protracted legal battle over whether W80 should face a misconduct hearing over the shooting.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct IOPC concluded W80’s belief that he was in imminent danger was honestly held but unreasonable, therefore he should face a gross misconduct case.
However the Metropolitan Police disagreed and refused to bring a case against the officer.
The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that the test for disciplinary proceedings over use of police force in self-defence should be according to civil, not criminal law standards.
IOPC General Counsel David Emery said: “Both the Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court, have reminded us of the importance of the wording of the police use of force standard of professional behaviour, which is that ’Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances’.
“This judgment does not mean that officers will be held to an impossible standard, that they can’t make mistakes or that hindsight will be unfairly used against them. The Supreme Court judgment simply means that officers can’t rely on unreasonable mistakes when justifying their use of force.
“As the Supreme Court put it, ‘Citizens should not feel that unreasonable mistakes made by the police are left unchecked or that the police are not held accountable for such mistakes’.”
At an inquiry into the shooting, W80 said he believed at the time Mr Baker, who was unarmed, was reaching for a weapon when he opened fire.
The inquiry found a catalogue of police failings in the planning of the operation, but to the dismay of Mr Baker’s family, it concluded he had been lawfully killed.
“W80 has fought tooth and nail to avoid facing justice for what he did, including by taking the matter right to the Supreme Court”, said Mr Baker’s mother Margaret Smith.
“Shockingly, he has been backed all the way by the Metropolitan Police Service.
“The Metropolitan Police Service must now respect the direction of the IOPC and the decision of Supreme Court and bring proper and effective proceedings against W80, so that he can finally be held to account for his actions.”
The IOPC said it will now consider afresh the possibility of a misconduct hearing in light of the Supreme Court ruling as well as evidence from the public inquiry.
Anita Sharma, Head of Casework at INQUEST which supported Mr Baker’s family, said: “Police officers do not have a license to kill. Any use of police force must be justified and proportionate. Where there are concerns with police conduct, it is paramount that they are publicly held to account.
Despite the best attempts of W80 and those supporting the firearms officer who killed Jermaine Baker, this judgment is a comprehensive dismissal of the long running attempts to evade accountability.
For Jermaine’s family, we must now see an urgent disciplinary hearing on W80’s conduct. For the public and other families or individuals impacted by police use of force, this judgment must strengthen the systems of accountability.
Holding police accountable for their actions is vital to enable justice for bereaved people, and to inform much needed systemic change.”
In its response, Scotland Yard said it will work with the IOPC to determine the next steps for W80 and a misconduct hearing.
“Our thoughts remain with Mr Baker’s family and all affected by this case”, said Commander Fiona Mallon, who is in charge of armed policing.
“The Met has offered every support to W80, his family and wider colleagues throughout this matter and we continue to do so. I don’t underestimate the impact upon them all.
“Today’s judgment has implications for use of force by all police officers and we will need time to consider the detail with policing colleagues nationally. This will include carefully considering the legislation, guidance and training currently in place for police officers.
"The judgment does not alter the fact we have firearms officers on the streets of London every day tackling dangerous criminals and working to keep the public safe. They have our full support.”
