Supreme Court backs IOPC in landmark ruling

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has welcomed a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court which will provide significant legal clarity about how police officers who use force will be held to account.

The ruling centred on the fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker in north London in December 2015, by an officer known for legal reasons as W80. We launched a murder investigation which we completed in November 2016 and submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The CPS decided not to prosecute W80 for the shooting. We found there was a disciplinary case to answer for W80’s use of force. The Metropolitan Police Service disagreed with us, and W80, supported by the Met, took us to court to get our decision overturned.

However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court found in the IOPC’s favour and said our interpretation of the law was correct.

The ruling means that in use of force self-defence cases involving police officers, it is the civil law test that should be applied in police disciplinary proceedings, rather than the criminal law test.  The main difference is that under the civil law test, a person who uses force cannot rely on unreasonable mistakes when seeking to justify their use of force, whereas they can in criminal proceedings.
 
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’.”
 
IOPC Acting Director General Tom Whiting said: “We must never forget that at the heart of this case is a man who lost his life and our thoughts remain with Jermaine’s family and everyone affected. 

“I would like to thank David and the team for their hard work on this complex case. This may seem like a ruling on a technical point of law, but in truth it provides vital clarity which will have important implications for police accountability when force is used. 

“The Supreme Court expressed concern about the amount of law and guidance surrounding police use of force and noted it had resulted in ‘unnecessary complexity’.

“Whilst we have welcomed many of the reforms to the disciplinary system over the past decade, it remains very complex and opaque. We agree with the Court that a return to fundamental principles is essential. That’s why we have called for radical reform to the whole system, including exploring the creation of a ‘fitness to practise(link is external)’ model which would set a national standard for what is expected of police officers.”

In terms of the W80 case itself, we will now review our original decision as to whether there remains a disciplinary case to answer, taking into account this judgment, evidence heard during the Public Inquiry, and further representations from W80 and Jermaine’s family.

Read the full ruling on the Supreme Court website.