Tottenham: police shooting followed by riots

[Jan Klimkowski]

At the superficial level, this "US SUPERCOP" rubbish is truly pathetic political posturing by a desperate government which went on holiday and lost control of the streets.

At a deeper level, it suggests that a Shock Therapy government will hand control of intelligence and enforcement of Britain's streets to Kroll and the privatized Volkland Security apparatus as the austerity measures and greed culture click into overdrive.

FFS.

Bill Bratton says he can lead police out of 'crisis' despite budget cuts

US police chief 'seriously interested' in Scotland Yard position though home secretary has banned foreigners from applying

Vikram Dodd and Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 August 2011 21.43 BST

The former US police chief Bill Bratton has said he is a "progressive" who can lead British policing out of "crisis", reduce crime despite budget cuts, and bring about "transformational" change in the aftermath of last week's UK riots.

In an interview with the Guardian, Bratton said he was "seriously" interested in the vacant post of commissioner of the Metropolitan police but that the home secretary, Theresa May, had been "adamant" in banning foreign nationals from applying.

Bratton credited with turning around troubled police departments in New York and Los Angeles is understood to have been David Cameron's choice to run Scotland Yard. Instead he will advise the prime minister on gangs and crime after the Home Office insisted that candidates must be British.

According to Whitehall sources, Bratton has also told friends that he was so keen to take the job he would be prepared to take British citizenship if it made the difference. Cameron's courting of Bratton continued to provoke criticism by senior British officers on Sunday.

Cameron will say in a speech today about the riots that Britain has undergone a "slow-motion moral collapse". The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, meanwhile will make a rival speech denouncing as "gimmicks" ideas put forward by senior Tories over the weekend to clamp down on crime with "zero tolerance".

The series of rows between the Tories and senior police officers intensified yesterday. They are disputing where the blame lies for the loss of control of the streets to looters, who deserves the credit for quelling the riots, and whether budget cuts will endanger public safety.

Among the day's developments:

Chris Sims, chief constable of West Midlands police, criticised "empty slogans" after Cameron's remarks about a "zero tolerance" of crime a theory Bratton used in New York. In a statement, Sims said: "I continue to work with the police authority to develop a policing response that is consistent with available good practice but is not slavishly adopting empty slogans."

Theresa May, the home secretary, said it was her job to tell police chiefs "what the public want them to do". In his Guardian interview, Bratton hits out at those opposing foreign expertise to help UK policing and warns against being "parochial".

The London mayor, Boris Johnson, said he would continue to fight for more police officers.

The appointment of Bratton as a consultant on gangs by the prime minister was attacked over the weekend by Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

In a swipe at Orde, who has dismissed the call for foreign police chiefs as "simply stupid", Bratton said Orde himself was successful as an Englishman coming in as an outsider to run the police in Northern Ireland. "I find it ironical, the hue and cry about outsiders," Bratton said.

He added that US police chiefs would be fired if they spoke out against politicians in the same way as Britain's top police officers have done.

Bratton's remarks are his most extensive yet on how his experience could, he claimed, make British streets safer, and will be seen by some as a job application.

He told the Guardian he had been "an outsider" when he took over police departments in the US and the situation with the Met "mirrors" those he inherited in New York and LA police departments.

The similarities were a leadership stepping down amid a corruption scandal, disorder on the streets, rows with politicians and community concerns about policing.

Bratton said: "The Met is having its share of issues and leadership crises, certainly. It is a mirror image of when I went into the NYPD and LAPD, and both those cities turned out quite well. I've been an outsider in every department I've worked in. Bureaucrats change processes, leaders change culture. I think of myself as a transformational leader who changes cultures."

Bratton said US police chiefs had shown their British counterparts the way, securing large falls in crime despite facing falling budgets. In LA, where he stepped down as police chief in 2009, despite high unemployment and a 15% budget cut, crime is down by 10%.

Bratton said: "You can run around saying, 'The sky is falling in, the sky is falling in,' or you actually do something about it. You have to play the hand you're dealt. I've always dealt initially with budget cuts.

"Out of crisis come opportunities. If you want to speed up the process of change, nothing does it better than a good old crisis."

Bratton said the chance to become Met commissioner was attractive: "If it was open to people other than British citizens, it would be something I would seriously consider. I understand the home secretary is adamant in opposing that."

Bratton declared he was steeped in the traditions of British policing and insisted he could change its culture. He said human rights were at the heart of his thinking: "Britain is the birthplace of democratic policing. Robert Peel's nine principles [of policing] shaped my thinking."

But it had to learn from elsewhere, he said: "Anyone who looks only inwards is not going to be as successful as someone who looks outside, the world over. It's a big world out there."

He said his track record demonstrated his toughness on crime. He told the Guardian he was a "progressive", pointing out that he hired more people from ethnic minorities, women, gay people and transvestite people to make the police forces he ran reflect the communities they serve.

The rebellion by British police chiefs spread , with fresh annoyance being triggered by Cameron telling a Sunday newspaper he wanted "zero tolerance" policing adopted on Britain's streets.

The courts opened their doors on a Sunday for the first time as the justice system continued to struggle to process suspected looters and rioters.

The police surge in numbers following the rioting was maintained , but unless there is further trouble or intelligence of fresh disorder, some areas will start reducing the officers out on the street on Monday .

British Police chiefs who thought government criticism was limited to the Met's handling of the outbreak of disorder in London, now feel the attack has spread to the reaction to force in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester.

On Sunday Chief Constable Sims said: "I look forward to being held to account for the decisions I have made over the past week which I believe were consistent with the available information and resources.

I am proud of how quickly the force adopted new tactics to this unprecedented challenge."

Amid stiff sentences being handed out to rioters and looters, Sims called for compassion not to be lost: "Sentencing is justifiably harsh but we must not at this time abandon all compassion for some of our very damaged young people who have been caught up in these incidents."

Tim Godwin, acting commissioner of the Met, said the criticism had led to "upset" among his command team and officers on the ground.

Andy Trotter, chief constable of British Transport police and a public order expert who is seriously considering applying for the Met commissionership, said he did not believe government claims that budget cuts would not damage the police: "We cannot pretend that the scale of cuts we face will not impact on the frontline of policing.

"It is simply not possible."

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hmmmmmm.....

Riots: Metropolitan police planned to hold all suspects in custody

Exclusive: leaked strategy amounts to a blanket policy of mass imprisonments and could lead to legal challenge, say lawyers

Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 August 2011 21.36 BST

Senior Metropolitan police officers devised a policy of holding all people arrested on riot-related offences in custody and recommending that the courts also refuse bail after they were charged, according to a leaked "prisoner processing strategy" that lawyers argue could pave the way for a mass legal challenge.

The document, seen by the Guardian, was circulated to all investigating officers at the height of the violence two weeks ago by Operation Withern, the codename for Scotland Yard's emergency response to the outbreak of violence in the capital. It suggested that no one arrested in or after the riots should be let off with a caution regardless of the offence and that everyone arrested should be held in custody, with a recommendation that bail should also be denied when the case first goes to court.

Lawyers began proceedings on Monday for the first judicial review of the custody procedures, which resulted in 62% of those arrested for involvement in the riots remanded in custody compared with a normal rate of around 10% for more serious offences. They claimed the document amounted to a blanket policy of mass imprisonment of people.

The police document argues that the policy was necessary to prevent further public disorder as violence spread through the capital. But it also acknowledges that the force was so stretched at the height of the riots that it was "impractical" to bail people while they conducted "protracted" investigations, suggesting that investigating officers use special rules to fast-track cases to the courts with less evidence than is normally required. The recommendation could expose the Metropolitan police to accusations that it adopted a policy of "conveyer belt" justice in order to deal with its unprecedented workload.

The document, titled Operation Withern: prisoner processing strategy, includes a suggested statement for investigating officers to use in the prosecuting reports of individual cases, which are then passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. It says: "A strategic decision has been made by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] that in all cases an application will be made for remand in custody both at the police station, and later at court. This decision has been made in the interest of public safety and the prevention of further cases of disorder. The spontaneous nature of these offences and the significant burden it has placed on police resources has meant that not all inquiries have yet been completed. Some inquiries, such as gathering of CCTV, are not capable of being progressed at present due to the ongoing public disorder in and around London.

"As a result this case requires the application of a 'threshold test' for a charging decision based on the evidence present and the expectation that further evidence may be forthcoming."

Elsewhere the document says: "The volume of prisoners being processed makes it impractical to bail for the purpose of protracted investigation. Where evidence of an offence exists charging authority should be sought, that is likely to mean that the threshold test is applied."

The threshold test allows prosecutors to lower the burden of proof needed to remand someone in custody where there is reasonable suspicion and prospect of a conviction, and where there is a substantial risk if they are released.

The document sheds significant light on the Met's processes and could explain why people accused of apparently minor offences such as theft of small items or receipt of stolen goods were not cautioned. They included a 23-year old student with no previous convictions who was refused bail and then sentenced to six months in prison for stealing a £3.50 bottle of water. The debate about sentencing of people accused of taking part in the riots has so far focused on the courts' right to use "exemplary" sentencing harsher sentences to deter people from rioting. But the document suggests that in deciding whether or not to grant bail the courts would have also been considering recommendations from the police to detain people in the vast majority of cases.

The document came into the hands of the solicitors Hodge, Jones & Allen, who have written to the Metropolitan police informing them they are starting judicial review proceedings of the decision not to bail an unnamed client, who was arrested for possession of £2,500 of items looted in the riots in south London.

The 25-year old care worker and mother of a two-year-old girl had no previous convictions and there was no evidence that she was involved in the looting.

Edward Kirton, the solicitor acting in the case, said: "The right to bail is a long-standing and essential part of our criminal justice system. It should be carefully considered and each case should be looked at on its own merits.

"In relation to the riots, it seems that the Metropolitan police took a strategic decision to apply a blanket ban and deny everyone bail, no matter what their circumstances. I consider this policy is unlawful as a result."

The lawyers' letter to the Met describes the policy as amounting to "unlawful arbitrary detention" of people. The existence of the policy has a "chilling" effect on Article 5 under the European court of human rights which guarantees an individual's liberty and security, it says. Adopting a pre-action protocol for judicial review, the letter demands an apology for the violation of the woman's fundamental rights. The Met said: "Guidance was issued to officers to ensure a consistent approach to an investigation which was, and remains, unprecedented in its volume and complexity.

"To ensure the interests of justice were served, prevent further disorder and protect the public it was made clear that a decision should be sought to charge where there was sufficient evidence. With courts sitting extended hours, the recommendation that those charged were remanded in custody was made to ensure cases were dealt with quickly and again to protect the public from potential further disorder.

"Cases were, and continue to be, looked at on the basis of the evidence available. Where the threshold to charge was not met people have been bailed to return pending further inquiries, released with no further action or - in a small number of cases - dealt with by other police disposals."

The Metropolitan Police's prisoner processing strategy document can be read here.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Some highly concerning claims made here, such as the gun allegedly found in Mark Duggan's sock not having his fingerprints on it, and the allegation that the taxi in which he was travelling was moved from the crime scene and then returned later:

Mark Duggan family accuse police of operating a 'shoot to kill' policy

Relatives of Tottenham man whose death during arrest sparked riots say questions remain over circumstances of fatal shooting

Diane Taylor guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 September 2011 16.55 BST

The family of Mark Duggan, the Tottenham man whose fatal shooting by police last month sparked five days of widespread riot and disorder, believe officers were operating a "shoot to kill" policy.

Duggan's brother, Shaun Hall, 42, said ahead of Duggan's funeral on Friday: "The police were clearly operating a shoot to kill policy that day. They are supposed to disable not kill suspects. If they hadn't shot and killed Mark there would have been no riots."

The family, in exclusive interviews with the Guardian, said they had been told that the bullet fired at Duggan's chest after officers intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, would have killed him in seven to 12 seconds, giving him no prospect of surviving.

They are devastated by his loss and distraught at the misinformation initially put out that the incident in Ferry Lane in Tottenham, north London, was a "shootout". The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is investigating the killing on 4 August, confirmed the two shots that were fired were from a CO19 firearms officer.

The family say they have been told there was no forensic evidence of Duggan's fingerprints on the non-police issue gun recovered at the scene of the shooting, and that they have many unanswered questions. The Guardian has established from sources outside the family that the gun was found inside a sock.

The family are also puzzled by reports that the taxi Duggan was travelling in when he was shot was initially moved from the crime scene and then returned.

"It's as though the police have messed with the whole case," claimed Hall. "Why did the police shoot to kill, why was the taxi moved from the crime scene, why were Mark's fingerprints not on the gun? We don't know whether or not that gun was planted."

Scotland Yard has repeatedly refused to comment on any aspect of the operation to arrest Duggan, saying the inquiry is the subject of an IPCC inquiry.

The family are distraught that they read about Duggan's death in the media before they received formal notification from the police about it.

The Met's new north area commander, Mak Chishty, went to Duggan's parents' Tottenham home on Friday evening last week to apologise for the police's failure to inform them more promptly about Duggan's death.

This was the family's first formal communication with a senior police officer.

"I rushed down to Ferry Lane after the shooting," said Duggan's girlfriend Semone Wilson, 29. The couple had been together since they were 15. She had heard rumours that he had been shot. "I was asked to come through the police tape and to give a description of Mark. They told me that the man who had been shot had tattoos and I was asked to describe Mark's tattoos."

However, the police did not confirm Duggan's identity to Wilson at the scene.

A Met police spokesman said Met family liaison officers met two members of the family on the night of the incident and that they agreed with them that the family members should inform the parents of Duggan's death. The spokesman said Commander Chisty had visited the family after hearing of their concerns and had "apologised for how this was managed".

It was on Saturday 6 August that his family went to formally identify Duggan's body at a Tottenham mortuary in the presence of the IPCC and were able to confirm that the man shot dead was indeed Duggan.

Later that day, his family and friends organised a peaceful march to Tottenham police station from the Broadwater Farm estate to protest about the shooting and their belief that police had failed to provide information.

"I went into the police station with my mum and told the officers on the front desk that I had come to report a murder," said Wilson. "They asked me whose murder I was reporting. When I told them it was Mark Duggan's murder they said to me, 'Don't worry, it's being sorted out,' and they told us to go and wait outside so that they could deal with other people who were reporting crimes."

They waited for four hours, being told repeatedly by police that someone would come out to speak them. No one did, so the family went home.

"Things were peaceful when we left," said Wilson. "When I saw the pictures of the rioting and looting on TV later in the evening I didn't realise at first that it followed on from our protest."

The family have repeatedly distanced themselves from the violent disorder of that night and in the following days after the peaceful protest at the police station. The family said they support the Guardian and London School of Economics research study into the causes and consequences of the riots, announced on Monday.

Mark's mother, Pam Duggan, 53, said her son would have been opposed to the disorder that spread to cities across England. "Mark wouldn't have condoned it and we don't condone it," she said.

"You killed my son in cold blood," she said of the police's actions. "I just want the police to admit that they killed my son. Why didn't the police shoot him in the foot instead of in the chest? I'm on Valium because of what happened. All of this has made me feel as if I want to go and lie down with my son. One of my other sons, Marlon, was stopped in a car a few days after Mark was killed and questioned by police. He went out in a taxi at the weekend and I was terrified that he was going to be shot dead too."

The family is also deeply upset by the media reports that Duggan was a gangster. They have admitted that Duggan was known to the police and had spent time on remand but emphasise that he had no criminal convictions. "If Mark had been a gangster he would have lots of money, which he didn't have," said Pam Duggan. "He would have been out all the time with lots of others but he wasn't. He was a loving boy with a good heart. He loved his children, he loved everybody. People from the whole community will be attending Mark's funeral and people will see who knew and loved Mark. Mark was the kind of person who would say if he saw someone fighting, 'Don't bother with that.'

"I lived on the Broadwater Farm estate for 26 years and I think that the police have got worse since the riots there in 1985. They're really picking on people. Mark had been harassed by the police for years."

Wilson said her three children with Duggan had have been left devastated by the loss of their father.

"They were on holiday for a week with other family members when Mark was killed so we managed to keep the news from them for a week. But when I finally did break the news to them, the youngest one immediately vomited. The other day I was in the street with my 10-year-old son and saw a white man being stopped and searched by police.

"My son asked me, 'Are they going to shoot him now?' I just tried to change the subject because I didn't want him to start asking lots of questions about Mark's death."

Hall said the family were determined to get justice.

"Justice for me is someone being punished for what they've done. The person who killed Mark needs to take the blame for it. Someone needs to be made accountable for what happened. We've heard everyone talking about gangs but the police are the biggest gang of all, an institutionalised gang. And like any other shooter in any other gang the person who killed Mark should be punished. Someone needs to be made accountable for this and we're not going to stop until we get justice."

The family are appealing for anyone who witnessed the shooting to contact Birnberg Pierce solicitors in confidence on 020 7911 0166.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The birth of a riot.

Swallowed in institutional secrecy.

The people cannot be told what happened.

Hell, a coroner cannot even be told....

:gossip: :mexican:

The shooting of Mark Duggan must be investigated openly

The IPCC says sensitive evidence of police decision-making may prevent an open hearing. What are the police trying to hide?

Stafford Scott

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 March 2012 15.04 BST

The news that the inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan has been further delayed, from September 2012 to January 2013, comes as no great surprise to those of us who have been through these types of investigations. Delays became par for the course in the inquests into the deaths of Cynthia Jarrett and Joy Gardner. It took four years for Roger Sylvester, another Tottenham resident whose life ended in police custody, to be declared "unlawfully killed", a verdict that was quashed a year later. And the inquest into the 2005 shooting of Azelle Rodney by Metropolitan police officers is still to be heard.

What was surprising in this case, shocking even, was the revelation from the Independent Police Complaints Commission that, in investigating the shooting, it has unearthed such sensitive material over police decision-making that it is unable to reveal it, even to the inquest coroner. So there is now a real possibility that an open inquest may not be held at all. Instead there may have to be an inquiry, before a judge, that would allow for closed sessions in which these "sensitive details" are kept secret.

As a former member of the IPCC's community reference group, which had limited oversight of the investigation and before that an independent adviser to the police gun crime unit Operation Trident I have a working knowledge of police operational procedures and cannot think of any reason why their decision-making processes should not be held up to public scrutiny. Of course there are the few exceptions where national security may genuinely be at stake, but Duggan's death, regardless of the aftermath, isn't on a par with them. I know of no case other than that of David Kelly, the United Nations weapons inspector who committed suicide in 2003, in which "sensitive information" has been used to prevent an inquest in which all evidence can be interrogated in full public glare. What can be so sensitive in Duggan's case?

Given the rioting that started in Tottenham and quickly spread across the country following his death, the police and the IPCC should be doing their utmost to ensure that all relevant information on this planned operation would be held up for public scrutiny. However, if the IPCC has its way we will be left with many unanswered questions questions to which Duggan's children, his parents and loved ones deserve answers.

The victims of the rioting deserve answers too. Otherwise, how can we ensure that this will never happen again?

The police and IPCC have already been forced to acknowledge that they failed Tottenham. On 6 August last year I led a demonstration to the police station as we wanted to know why Duggan's parents had not been informed of the circumstances of his death. Last month the Metropolitan police and the IPCC, quite rightly, publicly apologised to his parents. Had they treated the parents with the dignity and respect from the start we would never have gone to the police station. Had the IPCC not misled the media about an apparent shootout, we wouldn't have gone there angry.

As a result the IPCC's credibility in Tottenham is absolutely blown, which is in itself almost a criminal act because we needed to believe in this organisation. We needed to believe that a robust and transparent investigation into this tragedy would take place and that the lessons would be learned. But it's difficult, if not impossible, to have faith when the facts are kept secret, behind closed doors.

One of the things that the IPCC pledged to learn from last August was the dangers of what can happen when there is an information vacuum. The answer is that it's quickly filled. In August 2011 the word on the streets was that "they executed Mark". Seven months later the word is that the police had control of the gun or worse. If true, then the police are more than culpable in Duggan's killing: in the parlance of the modern judicial system they are guilty of joint enterprise. Is that what they are trying to hide from the world? We need an open inquest so we can learn the truth.

[Magda Hassan]

The birth of a riot.

Swallowed in institutional secrecy.

The people cannot be told what happened.

Hell, a coroner cannot even be told....

:gossip: :mexican:

The shooting of Mark Duggan must be investigated openly

The IPCC says sensitive evidence of police decision-making may prevent an open hearing. What are the police trying to hide?

Stafford Scott

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 March 2012 15.04 BST

The news that the inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan has been further delayed, from September 2012 to January 2013, comes as no great surprise to those of us who have been through these types of investigations. Delays became par for the course in the inquests into the deaths of Cynthia Jarrett and Joy Gardner. It took four years for Roger Sylvester, another Tottenham resident whose life ended in police custody, to be declared "unlawfully killed", a verdict that was quashed a year later. And the inquest into the 2005 shooting of Azelle Rodney by Metropolitan police officers is still to be heard.

What was surprising in this case, shocking even, was the revelation from the Independent Police Complaints Commission that, in investigating the shooting, it has unearthed such sensitive material over police decision-making that it is unable to reveal it, even to the inquest coroner. So there is now a real possibility that an open inquest may not be held at all. Instead there may have to be an inquiry, before a judge, that would allow for closed sessions in which these "sensitive details" are kept secret.

......[snip]

Just like Dr Kelly. A legally required and binding coroner's inquest is avaoided like the plague. It seems to be all the fashion these days to have 'inquiries' which are not legally enforcable and makes no-one acountable. It amounts to no more than a little chat betweeen mates but gives the appearance that they even give a shit while in fact they are covering it all up. This has got to change. Justice demands it. No fear or favor.

[Magda Hassan]

May well have some thing to do with the cover up....

IDF taught British Army vital lessons

By Robyn Rosen, September 28, 2010
Follow The JC on Twitter

The former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan has praised the Israeli army and said the British Army has learnt important lessons from it.

Retired Colonel Richard Kemp said some policies by the British Army have been formed "as a direct result" of consultation with its Israeli counterpart.
Speaking at an event held by the Zionist Federation, Colonel Kemp made his comments as royal sculptor Frances Segelman completed a bust of him at a fundraising event for BLESMA (British Limbless Ex-Servicemen Association) and the Shalom Foundation, a children's charity.
Col Kemp said: "The IDF does as much as the British Army, if not more, to safeguard local civilians.
"It only uses force when it has to.
"All the arguments thrown around in the international press that Israel does not take care in this are not
accurate.
"I have seen it through my own eyes and through my dealings with the top level of the Israeli army.
"Some of the policies of the British Army have been formed as a result of information given by the Israeli army such as their policy on terrorist bombs. The British Army didn't have that much experience and expertise in that area. The Israeli army has been incredibly helpful and open." http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/38832/...al-lessons

Ane more

Operation Kratos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Kratos referred to tactics developed by London's Metropolitan Police Service for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, most notably firing shots to the head without warning. The tactics were developed shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, based in part on consultation with Israeli and Sri Lankan law enforcement agencies on how to deal with suicide bombers. Little was revealed about these tactics until after the mistaken shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005, in the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The term is no longer used by the Metropolitan Police, although similar tactics remain in force.
[TABLE="class: toc, width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Development

After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, many police agencies worldwide began to seriously consider the possibility of suicide attacks in their own home countries and cities.[SUP][1][/SUP] A Metropolitan Police team led by Barbara Wilding, Deputy Assistant CommissionerSpecialist Operations, visited Israel, Sri Lanka and Russia, to learn from their experience of suicide attacks. They also consulted with UK government scientists.
Key findings were:

• The explosives used by suicide bombers were very sensitive, and were likely to be detonated by the conventional tactic of firing at the chest, as well as by less-lethal weapons.
  
• Suicide bombers were likely to detonate their devices on realising that they had been identified. Police must act covertly, and tactics must ensure immediate incapacitation to give the bomber no opportunity to detonate the bomb.
  

New tactics were developed in the first half of 2002 by Wilding and Sir David Veness, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations. These were designated Operation Kratos, named after the Greek demi-god Kratos (Greek: κράτος "strength or power"). Work on the policy was taken over by the Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in January 2003. A paper entitled Operation Kratos People was circulated among UK police forces, and Operation Kratos became national policy.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]

Details

There are three separate plans under the generic title of Operation Kratos:

• Operation Andromeda is designed to deal with the spontaneous sighting by a member of the public of a suspected suicide bomber.
  
• Operation Beach is where there is an intelligence-led covert operation to locate and arrest persons suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism.
  
• Operation Clydesdale is where intelligence has been received about a suicide attack on a pre-planned event.
  

Report to Metropolitan Police Authority on Suicide Terrorism[SUP][2][/SUP]

These plans deal with identifying and confronting suicide attackers. Ideally the confrontation would be arranged in a secluded location to avoid risk to police officers and members of the public. In extreme situations, the policy recommends that covert police officers fire on suspected suicide attackers without warning, aiming multiple shots at the brain stem to minimise the risk of detonation of a bomb.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] The Metropolitan Police and other forces also issue Kratos officers with hollow point ammunition, but this has not been incorporated into national guidance.[SUP][6][/SUP]
The decision whether to take such drastic action would be made by a Designated Senior Officer (DSO), an officer of Commander or Deputy Assistant Commissioner rank designated for that incident.[SUP][2][/SUP] The Met had previously used an on-site Designated Senior Officer in policing theNotting Hill Carnival, to decide whether to employ baton rounds should a riot develop, but the situation never arose.[SUP][7][/SUP] To deal with the more severe challenge of suicide bombers, Kratos DSOs would be centrally located, and would be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.[SUP][2][/SUP]

London bombings and the de Menezes shooting

After the London Tube and Bus bombings of 7 July 2005, an internal email was sent to specialised police units reminding them of the secret tactics for dealing with suicide bombers.[SUP][1][/SUP] Operation Kratos was first described publicly in an article in The Scotsman on 15 July 2005.[SUP][8][/SUP]Between 21 July and 5 August, Designated Senior Officers were alerted on 11 occasions, with Armed Response Units deployed to 6 of these incidents.[SUP][2][/SUP] On one of these occasions, they opened fire.
In the evening after the attempted 21 July 2005 bombings, Specialist Firearms Officers supporting the search for the bombers were issued with hollow point ammunition. When police linked Hussain Osman and another suspect to a block of flats in Brixton, the block was placed under surveillance. Commander Cressida Dick, who would also act as Gold Commander of the operation, was appointed as Kratos DSO. The firearms team were informed that they faced suicide bombers, that a DSO was in place, and that they might be required to use "unusual tactics".[SUP][4][/SUP]
On the morning of 22 July, surveillance officers believed that a man leaving the flats might have been Osman. In fact the man was Jean Charles de Menezes, who had no connection to the bombers other than his home address. As the firearms team was not at the site (for unknown reasons), one of the watchers followed him onto a bus. His innocent actions were misinterpreted as counter-surveillance measures, and a firearms team was called to intercept him. By the time they had arrived, de Menezes had entered Stockwell tube station and boarded a Tube train. Although no Kratos codeword had been given, the firearms officers believed him to be a suicide bomber. A surveillance officer seized de Menezes in a bear hug, and two plainclothes armed officers fired a total of nine shots, six of which struck his head from distances of 1 to 8 cm. Menezes died instantly.[SUP][4][/SUP]

Reaction to the shooting

The manner of the killing was such a departure from previous police practice that observers speculated that it had been carried out by militaryspecial forces. Most commentators agreed that the authorities must have been certain of an imminent threat to order such drastic action.[SUP][9][/SUP]After the police admitted that they had shot an innocent man, the Operation Kratos policies came to national and international attention, with some commentators decrying the policies as unnecessarily violent and ineffective, and others supporting the difficult decisions made by the police in fighting terrorism.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP]
An Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report identified a series of errors on the part of police, and recommended a number of changes.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] No individual officers were charged, but the Metropolitan Police were later found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and fined.[SUP][13][/SUP] The inquest into the death of de Menezes made further criticisms of the police, and returned an open verdict.[SUP][14][/SUP]
ACPO reviewed Operation Kratos in March 2006 and declared it still "fit for purpose".[SUP][15][/SUP] The Met made changes to the command structure of Operation Kratos after the shooting. In future, authorisation of a critical shot would be communicated by a clear English phrase rather than codewords. Authorisation would still come from specially trained officers of Commander rank or higher, but these would now be called Extreme Threat Tactical Commanders rather than DSOs. Despite the high rank of this officer, they would not command the whole operation, but would monitor the operation and take over tactical command when a threat of suicide bombing became apparent. The number of such officers in the Met would be reduced to 12, and they would receive more intensive training. The term Operation Kratos was dropped at the beginning of 2008.[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP]

The law

For a general discussion on the policy and theory underlying the defence of self-defence and the defence of others, see the Theory of Self-Defence. For a more detailed discussion of the right to use deadly force in the prevention of crime, whether as a private citizen, police officer or member of the armed forces, see self-defence in English law and use of force.

References

• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] Burns, Jimmy (25 July 2005). "Met adopted secret shoot-to-kill policy in the face of a new and deadly threat". Financial Times.
  
• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] [SUP]c[/SUP] [SUP]d[/SUP] [SUP]e[/SUP] [SUP]f[/SUP] Swain, Steve (27 October 2005). Suicide Terrorism (Report). Metropolitan Police Authority.
  
• ^ Taylor, Peter (8 March 2006). "The terrorist who wasn't". The Guardian.
  
• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] [SUP]c[/SUP] [SUP]d[/SUP] Stockwell One: Investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell underground station on 22 July 2005(Report). Independent Police Complaints Commission. 8 November 2007.
  
• ^ [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] Harrison, David; Johnston, Chris (24 July 2005). "Muslims back 'shoot to kill' despite an innocent man's death". The Daily Telegraph.
  
• ^ Steele, John (16 November 2005). "Police used 'dum dum' bullets to kill de Menezes". The Telegraph.
  
• ^ "Brian Paddick's evidence to de Menezes inquest". 5 November 2008.
  
• ^ Nelson, Fraser; Chamberlain, Gethin; Kirkup, James (15 July 2005). "Police may receive shoot-to-kill orders". The Scotsman.
  
• ^ "Will police now shoot to kill?". BBC News. 22 July 2005. Retrieved 9 December 2009.
  
• ^ Ansari, Fahad (June 2006). British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt (Report). Islamic Human Rights Commission.
  
• ^ Husain, Miranda (29 July 2005). "VIEW: Metropolitan Police licensed to kill". Pakistan Daily Times.
  
• ^ "Police censured over Menezes case". BBC News. 8 November 2007.
  
• ^ Henry, Emma (1 November 2007). "De Menezes: Met guilty over health and safety". The Telegraph.
  
• ^ Laville, Sandra; Siddique, Haroon (12 December 2008). "Jean Charles de Menezes inquest records open verdict". The Guardian.
  
• ^ Steele, John (8 March 2006). "Shoot-to-kill tactic still viable, say police chiefs". The Telegraph.
  
• ^ Williams, Rachel (Friday 12 December 2008). "De Menezes: How the Met tried to win the PR war". The Guardian.
  
• ^ Wilson, Jeremy (2 April 2009). MPS response to the MPA Stockwell scrutiny (Report). Metropolitan Police Authority.
  
• ^ Stewart, Moir (20 February 2009). Inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes - Metropolitan Police Commissioner's response to the Rule 43 Report (Report). Metropolitan Police Service.
  

External links

• Stockwell reports, Metropolitan Police Authority.
  
• Coroner's Inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes (copy at Internet Archive)
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos

[Jan Klimkowski]

Magda - provocative find.

I note though that:

An inquest has found that Mark Duggan, the man whose death sparked the London riots, died of a single gunshot wound to the chest.

Source.

I also note that the official story is that Kratos tactics, which authorize head shots, are meant to apply only to "suicide bombers" and "terrorists".

There has been no suggestion that Scotland Yard believed Duggan to be a terrorist or suicide bomber.

However, that is the official story, and I would not be surprised if a variant of Kratos for use against suspected "gangstas" or "armed hostiles" is precisely what the IPCC is suggesting may be kept secret from the public and the coroner.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The Head of the Independent Police Complaints Commission responds directly to Stafford Scott's piece in post #54 above:

The IPCC is in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in Stafford Scott's piece on the Mark Duggan case (This inquest can't be secret, 28 March). The IPCC is not seeking to withhold information but has alerted the coroner that there may be relevant material we will be legally prevented from disclosing to him or the interested parties. We have drawn this to the coroner's attention now because we considered it fair and right to warn him and the family early of these potential difficulties. We won't know if we can share all the relevant information with the coroner and Mr Duggan's family until we've completed our investigation. The coroner has set a further pre-inquest hearing for 23 October for these issues to be discussed. It is because the IPCC believes information should be disclosed to the deceased's family and the public that, in March 2009, we made a submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the proposals in the coroners and justice bill on non-jury inquests.
Rachel Cerfontyne
IPCC commissioner

We shall see....

[Jan Klimkowski]

The official version is now that the evidence that cannot be disclosed is telephone intercepts:

Mark Duggan death: IPCC says hands are tied over release of evidence

Police watchdog investigating death of Duggan, whose shooting sparked last year's riots, says law prevents it revealing evidence

Shiv Malik and Sandra Laville

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 March 2012 10.16 BST


The police watchdog investigating the death of Mark Duggan has called for the law to be changed after admitting that its "hands are tied" by legislation that means that a public coroner's inquest into the killing may never be held.

The deputy chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Deborah Glass, put out a statement on Thursday morning saying the organisation was "extremely frustrated" by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which she says has stopped her organisation from revealing information unearthed during its investigation into Duggan's death.

The information is believed to centre around intercept evidence but the IPCC said that even giving details of what the issue might be would itself be a breach of the law.

The statement follows the revelation earlier this week that the coroner's inquest into the death has been delayed and may never be held, and that the IPCC's own investigation into the killing had also been delayed and its findings may not be available until the autumn.

Duggan was killed in August 2011 after being shot by a Metropolitan police officer in Tottenham, north London. The subsequent protest over his death sparked riots in the capital, which rapidly spread to the rest of England.

After Duggan's death, the IPCC said he had shot at police marksmen before they returned fire but it soon retracted its statement, saying it was untrue.

The IPCC's statement came as the aunt of Mark Duggan, Carole Duggan, said on Radio 4's Today programme that the family knew little more than the public as to what had led to his killing since the IPCC opened its investigation last year.

"We're still as in the dark now as we were in the beginning," she said, adding the family deserved an inquest so they could learn the truth about what happened on the evening of Duggan's death.

"We as a family believe that Mark was executed on the streets of London by the Metropolitan police … all the information is being withheld from us."

"I know that the IPCC have got a job to do but we see the IPCC as an obstacle in the way of getting information from the Metropolitan police," she said.

In her IPCC statement, Glass said: "The IPCC believes that it is essential for families to play a full part in any process which establishes how and in what circumstances their family member died.

"Our principal statutory duty is to secure and maintain confidence in the police complaints system and one way in which this can be achieved is by ensuring that there is proper public scrutiny when someone dies at the hands of the state.

"We are therefore extremely frustrated when anyone or anything attempts to get in the way of our ability to provide family members with information about an investigation into a death at the hands of the police or to ensure a full public examination of the facts surrounding the death."

The statement says that the impact of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is "that not only can some information not be disclosed, we cannot even explain why we cannot disclose the information, as this itself would be a breach of the law.

"In our view this places investigatory bodies in the invidious position of being unable to provide families, and the public, with meaningful information on the investigation or even explain why that information cannot be provided. We believe this law needs to be changed."

By law certain types of surveillance including phone intercepts cannot be produced in a public court.

In a letter published in the Guardian on Thursday, Rachel Cerfontyne, an IPCC commissioner, said the watchdog did not want a secret court hearing and had alerted Duggan's coroner to the problems surrounding the secret information they had uncovered.

"The IPCC is not seeking to withhold information, but has alerted the coroner that there may be relevant material that we will be legally prevented from disclosing to him or the interested parties.

"We have drawn this to the coroner's attention at this stage because we considered it to be fair and right to give him and the family early warning of these potential difficulties."

The coroner decided the issues would not be discussed until October following a criminal trial relating to the case.

Cerfontyne said the IPCC wanted a public hearing and had raised the same problem to a House of Commons committee three years ago.

In its submission to the joint committee for human rights, the IPCC raised the issue of whether the information on certain types of surveillance, which by law cannot be heard in public, could be shared with the family by the inquest.

It said families would not otherwise be given the full picture of the events leading to the death of a loved one.

"It is because the IPCC believes that information should be disclosed to the deceased's family and the public that, in March 2009, we made a submission to the joint committee for human rights on the proposals in the coroners and justice bill on non-jury inquests," she wrote.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hmmmm................

17 January 2013 Last updated at 20:26 BBC News

Police account of Mark Duggan's injuries 'differs' from pathologist

Mark Duggan was shot dead by police in Tottenham, north London, on 4 August 2011

Mark Duggan's injuries did not appear to be consistent with a police account of the fatal shooting, a Home Office pathologist has told a court.

Dr Simon Poole was testifying in the retrial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who denies supplying an illegal gun to Mr Duggan the day he was shot.

A post-mortem examination showed Mr Duggan had bullet wounds to the chest and upper right arm.

He was shot dead by police on 4 August 2011 in Tottenham, north London.

His death sparked riots which swept across the capital and the country.
'Can't be right'

The Old Bailey heard the fatal shot was to the chest, entering the front right hand side and exiting the back of Mr Duggan on the left hand side.

The other bullet entered the right upper arm and tracked down a few centimetres under the skin, before exiting the arm and grazing the skin of the chest.

The doctor said he was unable to say the order in which the bullets were fired.

Stuart Denney QC, barrister for Mr Hutchinson-Foster, asked the pathologist to imagine a scene in which Mr Duggan had got out of a minicab and was heading towards a wall beside the road while a police officer had got out of a car behind the taxi and was standing on the pavement.

Kevin Hutchinson-Foster denies providing Mr Duggan with a gun

The jury has already heard evidence from a police officer known as V53 who described a similar situation leading up to the shooting.

Mr Denney suggested that if the police officer then fired the shot that struck Mr Duggan in the chest, the track of the bullet would have to pass from the left to the right.

He asked the pathologist: "But in fact the chest wound is right to left?"

"Yes, that's right," answered Dr Poole.

Mr Denney said: "So the scenario can't be right? The officer fires to his left and the bullet hits Mr Duggan in the chest and it should go from left to right - but it went right to left. Therefore the scenario can't be right?"

"I agree," Dr Poole replied.

Under re-examination Dr Poole agreed with the prosecution that if Mr Duggan turned to face the person who fired the shot, that would change the position of his body in relation to the person who fired the shot.

The trial continues.