Split-second Decisions

The decision to suspend the two officers in the Harry Stanley case has brought to a head a major problem which has been festering for far too long.

Consider what the officers – Ch Insp Neil Sharman and Constable Kevin Fagan – have had
to endure. More than five years of uncertainty during which time they have been on nonoperational duties, two inquests with two different verdicts, culminating in full suspension and still worse uncertainty for an unspecified period of time.

Oh! And, of course, three referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service, two of which concluded that there was no case to answer, while the current one remains pending.
Small wonder, then, that their colleagues have viewed the pair’s predicament with such apprehension and dismay that some decided temporarily to hand in their firearms authorisations.

This action was, they felt, the only way to win the MPS’s attention. And it is why the Met Federation, with the support of the national Federation, is demanding a full and urgent review of the MPS’s policy on suspension before more individuals find themselves in similarly invidious situations.

The decision to suspend Neil and Kevin is a travesty of justice. It was simply a knee-jerk reaction, with nothing to justify it. The two officers had been deployed on non-operational duties following the incident, doing valuable work for the MPS, their colleagues and, most importantly, the public. Now everyone has been
deprived of those services. Why? What’s changed? Why were they fit to do their jobs one day and not the next? The MPS has no credible answer.

What it does have is a fund of double-speak and a fondness for smoke screens. In a by-lined article in The Sun, Deputy Commissioner Sir Ian Blair assured that paper’s readers
that “the system” had forced senior officers “into the unenviable position of having to suspend two experienced officers”. Meanwhile, in a press release, the Metropolitan Police
Authority said that “the Met was left with little option but to suspend the officers”.

Rubbish! The suspension of officers is governed by Regulation 5 of the Police
(Conduct) Regulations 1999, which states only that a chief officer “may exercise the power to suspend”. Nowhere does it state that he or she is required to. The MPA’s press release contains some other astounding statements.

It says: “There is still a judicial
process continuing in relation
to the Harry Stanley case and
everyone should await the
outcome before taking hasty
action.”

Well, precisely. Neil and Kevin were suspended within hours of the inquest verdict. If
that isn’t hasty action, taken with complete disregard to any subsequent legal proceedings, then what is?

The press release continues:
“The MPS has given considerable
support to the officers and their
families and will continue to do
so.”

Pardon? The decision to suspend the officers hardly constitutes “considerable support”.
Indeed, even after the first inquest, when an open verdict was reached, Kevin was not
restored to full duties (Neil was by then pursuing his career elsewhere, on borough). A strange sort of support, indeed.

What it comes down to is this: firearms officers perform one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in policing, where they are expected to make splitsecond decisions.
Even though they may be adhering strictly to the tactics which they have been taught;
even though their actions may be fully in adherence to the ACPO Manual on the Use of Firearms – and we have no doubt that this was the case in the Harry Stanley shootings – things may go wrong.

And what happens then?

Officers rely on the MPS for support. But will it, instead, sacrifice them on the altars of political expediency and public relations? It’s a bleak prospect which all firearms officers in London are now staring in the face.

The robust reaction of the SO19 officers and the Met Federation has prompted management
to produce an eightpoint action plan which, we hope, will go at least some way towards addressing the fears of firearms officers in London and potentially elsewhere.

For the perverse decision to suspend Neil and Kevin is putting London in danger. Already, the number of firearms officers in the Met is below establishment, and this at a time when the capital faces continuing gun crime as well as the heightened threat from terrorists.

Nothing which has happened in the Harry Stanley case is likely to encourage more volunteers to come forward for firearms training. This is why the Met Federation is continuing to demand that, at the very least, the two officers involved be reinstated
and fully supported by the organisation.

What a way for Sir Ian Blair to start to establish himself as the leader of London’s police, as he will be next year. All does not bode well.

Glen Smyth, Chairman of the Met Federation