Police Firearms (Hansard, 17 April 2000)

§ Mr. Sedgemore

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It ought not to happen like that—Harry Stanley trashed virtually on his own doorstep by the very people who are paid to keep the peace and to protect us. Undoubtedly, this was the worst and most tragic case of its kind ever to take place in the United Kingdom. For heaven's sake—Harry had been diagnosed as having cancer of the colon and was recovering from an operation.

Harry Stanley never asked for much. When he left home that morning, his last words to his wife Irene, who asked him what he wanted for dinner, were, "I'll have stovies"—a reference to a traditional Scottish dish of sausage, potatoes and onions. Hours later, Mrs. Stanley heard a noise—bang, bang—but had no idea that her husband was lying dead in a pool of blood around the corner.

When something like that happens and a wholly innocent person is killed, the system goes into denial. Inquiries are held, these days under the auspices of the Police Complaints Authority. The inquiry takes for ever, lasting three, four or even 10 times longer than a murder inquiry, often exceeding the 120-day deadline set. The papers are sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, where they are dealt with at a leisurely pace by the few Treasury counsel capable of handling them. Charges rarely ensue, and that is that.

My inquiries reveal that 22 people have been shot dead by police officers since 1990, some of them found to be unarmed and some armed with a toy replica gun. Prosecutions have been virtually non-existent. Indeed, in only two of the cases has anyone been charged. In one case, the jury acquitted; in another, a trial is pending. Although each case must be considered on its merits, when the cases are examined collectively, the signal that goes out to the public is that the police have a licence to kill.

In London the role of the police authority is performed by the Home Secretary, who is answerable to the House. The House, as far as I am aware, has not given the Home Secretary the power to grant police officers in London, openly or covertly, licences to kill.

Bizarrely, the identity of the killers in such cases is kept secret for as long as possible. Even today, Irene Stanley does not know who killed her husband. Why? If police 803 officers had not been involved, she would have known a long time ago. Why has Mrs. Stanley received no word of apology from the two officers involved? Surely she has a right to know who killed her husband; surely her son Jason has a right to know who killed his dad. It was insensitive—to put it mildly—that the officers were not suspended pending an inquiry. That sends the wrong signals: namely that police officers have a licence to kill and that their identities will be protected.

Of course there are guidelines for the police on the use and issue of firearms. They are contained in an Association of Chief Police Officers document, which was issued in 1987, and which may have been reissued recently. The ACPO guidelines state that, first, firearms should be used only when there is reason to believe that a police officer may have to face a person who is armed or so dangerous that he could not be restrained without the use of firearms. Secondly, only reasonable force should be used. Thirdly, a proper briefing should be given to armed police officers before they set off. An officer of appropriate senior rank and, I presume, someone who has satisfied himself that an operation by armed police officers is justified should give the briefing. Fourthly, firearms should be used only as a last resort when conventional methods have been tried and failed. Fifthly, only properly trained police officers should bear arms.

I am told that the provisions of the ACPO manual are a Government secret, subject to a public interest immunity certificate. If that is true, the veil of secrecy should be lifted so that the public can know what the procedures are, and ascertain whether they are adequate and how they could be improved to avoid further death.

All the cases that I have examined raise the question of police training in the use of firearms. Too often, those who use guns seem deficient in detective skills and training. Surely it is important that officers who carry guns should be capable of detective work, which can shatter the preconceptions that they held when they set off on their mission, often in a highly charged and pumped up state. Uniformed police officers who carry and discharge guns must be capable of thinking quickly and intelligently for themselves as well as responding to the unexpected.

Harry Stanley's mistake when going home on that fatal day was to go into the Queen Alexandra pub for a glass of lemonade. When he left, some idiot from the pub telephoned the police and told them, without a shred of evidence, that the table leg in the plastic bag was a sawn-off shotgun. Sadly, the strength of that evidence was never tested in the recorded telephone conversation or by the police officers who subsequently shot Harry in the street.

One expects sensitivity from the police when innocent people have been killed through the use of firearms by their own. Even more sadly, the police failed to identify Harry as he lay dead in the street although he had a passport and other evidence from which he could easily have been identified.

Rule 7 of the coroner's rules 1984 requires the coroner to notify the relatives of a deceased person in advance of a post mortem examination so that, if they wish, a representative may be present. By the time the post mortem of Harry Stanley took place, Brian Craddock, the 804 officer in charge of the inquiry, had discovered Harry's identity, but could not be bothered to inform Mrs. Stanley that her husband had been killed and that she had the right to a representative at the post mortem. We need more respect from the police than that: they should not feel that they can ignore us or our rights just because we are working class in Hackney.

At first, the Metropolitan police offered to pay for Harry's funeral—a small recompense, you might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but, in an act as nasty as any I can remember, the organisation that employed the killers who shot Harry withdrew the offer. Imagine what Mrs. Stanley's feelings must have been when she heard that. I can only suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, John Stevens, pay Mrs. Stanley a visit to apologise in person for that appalling behaviour. What about a touch of common humanity from the commissioner?

Meanwhile, we still do not know why Harry Stanley died. The only ballistic expert capable of dealing with such cases, Chief Superintendent Alan Bailey, slowed the inquiry down by a month, developing questionable virtual reality reconstructions on video. I understand that that is some kind of new technique. The Surrey police are investigating the Metropolitan police. The Suffolk police are investigating the investigators, the Surrey police. It all seems a bit incestuous. It is not for me in the debate or for the House to pronounce on what happened in this dreadful case, but too much time has passed and there has been too much secrecy.

A daft suggestion was originally put around that, in walking home and minding his own business, Harry Stanley was on a suicide mission, hoping that police officers would turn up out of the blue and shoot him dead. Another silly suggestion was that he was Irish—so what else could he expect? From what I know of the case, my considered opinion as a barrister is that a jury should be asked to decide on the evidence whether the two police officers are innocent or guilty of manslaughter or, worse, murder.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has said, this is indeed an appalling case. I congratulate him on obtaining the debate. He was my Member of Parliament for a long period of my life, so it is a particular privilege to respond to his debate. I want to make a number of general points, but shall start with the specifics of the appalling incident that he described.

I express my sympathy and that of the Government to the family and friends of Harry Stanley over this sad death. That sympathy needs to be expressed not only for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend in his eloquent address, but because any such terrible occasion must be properly acknowledged.

The shooting of Mr. Stanley occurred at about 7.54 pm on 22 September 1999 in Fremont street, Hackney—a street I know well. Following a call from a member of the public, police believed Harry Stanley to be armed. They challenged him. He raised a bag that the police believed to contain a firearm and the two officers each fired a shot. Mr. Stanley was fatally wounded and pronounced dead at the scene. It was subsequently discovered that he was not carrying any firearm.

805 The Metropolitan police reported the shooting to the Police Complaints Authority and it was agreed the next day—23 September—that the Surrey police should investigate the incident described by my hon. Friend. It remains under investigation by the PCA and we understand that that investigation is due to be completed shortly. However, as the matter has yet to be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service—my hon. Friend raised important issues about charges that might or might not be brought—and by the PCA in respect of any criminal or disciplinary matters, it is important that I do not say anything that might be held to prejudice those important decisions. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that.

I well understand the family's concern at the time taken by the investigation. The time that it takes to deal with complaints of this kind has been one of the most distressing aspects of this job, which I took on in August last year. Such investigations are time consuming and, in my opinion, very legalistic; moreover, they do not satisfy victims. I am talking not just about complaints of the type that we are discussing, but about all complaints about the way in which the police operate—particularly those involving death, of course, but others as well. We are actively considering the best way in which to deal with the problem. A report to be published shortly will, I hope, shorten the time taken by investigations. If an investigation takes time, however, it may mean that a thorough and rigorous inquiry has been undertaken, as is happening in this instance. Everything possible is being done to ensure that the truth is established.

I am glad that my hon. Friend dismissed some of the "silly suggestions"—I think that was the phrase he used—about what might or might not have been the motivation in this case. He did, however, raise a number of other matters, which the inquiry will decide. He asked what authority had been given. He also asked what briefing and instructions had been given, and correctly pointed out that there were clear guidelines. It will be for the inquiry to establish whether they were fulfilled. He raised the question of firearms being used as a last resort, which is a requirement of the guidelines. That, too, will be inquired into and reported on. More generally, he raised the question of proper training, which will be an important feature of the inquiry. He mentioned the failure to identify Mr. Stanley, and the extent to which the coroners rules were or were not obeyed. That, too, will be dealt with.

I am appalled by what my hon. Friend said about the withdrawal of the offer to pay for the funeral, and I will look into that specifically; but all the matters that he raised will be considered in the inquiry, and a full report will be made.

The use of firearms by police has been and remains a rare last resort. Neither in this case nor in any other have the police had a licence to kill; nor has the Home Secretary, any police authority or anyone else given them a licence to kill in any circumstances, general or particular. I feel I must rebut the suggestion that any police have a licence to kill, because it is simply wrong. The policy is that the police should not generally be armed, but that specialist firearms officers should be deployed when an operational need arises.

The protection of officers and members of the public is clearly the highest priority whenever there is a firearms risk. It is against that background that chief officers must decide whether, in any given circumstances, the 806 deployment of armed officers is justified. I think there is a consensus that that is far preferable to the routine arming of patrol officers, which happens in some countries.

Decisions about the deployment of armed officers are the responsibility of individual chief police officers. They are, however, guided by a manual issued—as my hon. Friend said—by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which provides guidance on the selection of armed officers, training, tactics and equipment. It is intended to ensure that all matters concerning police firearms are subject to the tightest control and discipline, while aiming also to ensure that the police are properly equipped for the dangerous conditions that they must sometimes face. The report will deal with the extent to which those requirements were or were not fulfilled in the case of my hon. Friend's constituent.

As my hon. Friend said, the manual—which is currently being revised to take into account the Human Rights Act 1998—is confidential, because it is deemed to contain information that could be useful to armed criminals. However, I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the police are actively considering whether parts of it, at least, could be made public. I agree with him that this is an important issue of public concern.

It may be of interest to the House to know how it is all moving: what the statistics are. Last Wednesday, we released figures to show that the number of firearms operations had fallen from 11,842 in 1997–98 to 10,942 in 1998–99, a decrease of more than 7 per cent. There has been a 4 per cent. decrease in the number of authorised firearms officers in police forces and a 3 per cent. increase in the number of operations involving armed response vehicles.

The number of authorised firearms officers continues to fall because of a trend towards concentrating police firearms capability in a smaller number of highly trained officers, and the replacement of many divisional firearms officers with a smaller number of armed response vehicle officers. The small rise in the number of operations involving armed response vehicles may have been due to more of those units being available to police. Many forces are increasing their numbers of armed response vehicles.

The number of operations in which firearms are discharged by police remains very low. The number of operations in which firearms are issued has decreased again. Chief officers are continuing to concentrate their firearms capacity in a small number of highly trained officers.

Obviously, any operation involving the use of firearms carries risks. If the operation goes wrong in any way, the consequences can be devastating for all those involved, but there will be an investigation process to be followed if incidents occur.

As my hon. Friend acknowledged, investigations are supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, which has the power to approve the choice of investigating officer and to give directions on the course of the inquiry. At the end of the investigation, the PCA must issue a statement indicating whether the investigation has been completed to its satisfaction.

I emphasise—it is a critical point, particularly in the light of the remarks about licence to kill—that police officers are not above the law. They need to abide by 807 section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which is the golden rule on the use of force by officers of the law, or by anyone else. It says that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large. That is the legal definition, which will be one of the aspects that is assessed in the inquiry to which my hon. Friend referred.

Of course, the degree of force justified will vary according to the circumstances of each case, but the responsibility for the use of the firearm is an individual decision which may have to be justified in legal proceedings. It is for the courts to decide in any particular case whether the force used was reasonable.

As part of the Home Secretary's action plan on recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the Home Office commissioned a feasibility study of possible arrangements for the independent investigation of police complaints. That report will be published shortly. The House may be interested to know that Liberty has also commissioned such a report, which will also be published. The Government will consider in the light of that work whether to introduce legislation to establish a new independent complaints investigation body.

808 I mention this because my hon. Friend, who spoke entirely reasonably, raised the doubts and concerns that individuals might have about the independence or otherwise of the complaints process. The Government believe that it is important that any complaints process on the operation of the police carry the confidence of those who have been affected by it. That is why we are looking very positively at the recommendation and have commissioned detailed work on how such an operation might work and provide reassurance, which is tremendously important for the future of policing as a whole.

I have endeavoured to explain the situation around the shooting of Mr. Stanley as I understand it and to extend, as strongly as I can, my sympathy and that of the Government to the family and friends of Harry Stanley. I have endeavoured to give some context to the overall situation and to indicate that many of the trends on the use of arms in those circumstances are going downwards at the moment. I hope that the result of the inquiry will be published shortly and that that will give everybody involved some purchase on the important issues at stake. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and for airing what I think the whole House would agree is an important issue.