National recommendations - National Police Chiefs Council, September 2020
In March 2019, police officers from West Midlands Police’s Firearms Operations Unit assisted in the execution of a Section 8 Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) search warrant, following a Public Protection Unit (PPU) investigation. Firearms officers gained access to the property using a set of keys. The chain was across the door and they used an enforcer to force entry. The occupant of the address was in a bedroom opposite officers. He was stood, wrapped in a duvet, concealing his right hand. Officers called for the occupant to exit and show his hands. He did not comply. Officers continued to negotiate with the occupant who further refused to comply with officer commands. A Firearms Support Dog was requested. Upon approaching the door, the dog barked. The occupant removed the duvet he was wrapped in and quickly raised his right hand and moved towards officers. A single shot was fired by officers, striking the occupant in the upper right chest. First-aid was provided and an ambulance requested. Ambulance crews attended however the occupant was pronounced deceased at the scene. A non-police firearm was recovered from the address.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that national guidance be amended/updated to state that prior to firearms operations, where timing allows (e.g. pre-planned operations) and where doing so would not present any issues regarding safety and security, an incident log should be created within the Force Control Room containing accurate address details of where the firearms operation will be conducted. Where a log has not been created prior to an operation, guidance should state that the Tactical Firearms Commander (TFC) should ensure that the tactical plan identifies who will have responsibility for requesting an ambulance directly, to avoid any delay caused by requesting one via the Force Control Room. Where it is reasonable to believe that requesting an ambulance from the scene directly may cause a delay e.g. where phone or radio coverage is poor, a request should be made via the Force Control Room, ensuring that full address details are communicated at the time of making the request.
In this case, following shots to a suspect, an ambulance was deployed to an incorrect address, similar in name to the correct address, due to a misunderstanding within the Force Control Room. Had a log been in place with correct address details, this delay could have been avoided. Whilst, in this case, the delay in an ambulance arriving was rectified quickly and had no bearing on the survivability of the injured party, this may not be the case in future incidents. Where the Force Control Room requests an ambulance, they will not have the first-hand knowledge of the address or other details that may be helpful to avoid any delay and ensure the ambulance is deployed to the correct address.
Do you accept the recommendation?
Yes
Accepted action:
APP to be updated/amended to reflect recommendation.
The IOPC recommends that the NPCC lead for complaints and misconduct works with all forces to ensure that requirements around delivering the message about a police-related death are clear and understood. This includes the requirement that the senior officer on duty with responsibility for Professional Standards and liaison with the IOPC should:
- recognise the need to provide notification without any undue delay. While there will be a need to consider the preservation of evidence, the presumption should be in favour of notification as soon as possible
- ensure that the notification is made in person by an officer of sufficient rank and expertise to be able to understand and convey the immediate steps that are occurring and be able assess and respond to any immediate risks or issues. Subject to a local assessment of circumstances, this should usually be an officer of an inspecting rank. A junior officer should not be tasked with providing the notification.
The IOPC has seen several cases nationally where delivery of the death message has been a point of concern for the deceased’s next of kin, either due to the way in which the message was delivered or how long it took to be delivered. In this case in particular, the message was delivered by a junior officer who was given a ‘form of words’ to read out.
IOPC guidance on family liaison which can be located in Appendix 2 of the National Policing Improvement Agency Family Liaison Guidance (2008), published on behalf of the Association of Police Officers, states the responsibility for delivering the death message lies with the police. Delivery of the message should be discussed with the IOPC SIO (usually an Operations Manager or higher) however, all efforts should be directed to ensuring the message is delivered without delay.
Do you accept the recommendation?
N/A