:00:18. > :00:21.This is the rarely seen side of British policing. An elite firearms
:00:22. > :00:24.unit in action. Rescuing a hostage from drug dealers. Tackling
:00:25. > :00:27.dangerous criminals has to be done to protect the public. Can someone
:00:28. > :00:32.go through the bag, please? But police firearms teams are under
:00:33. > :00:35.intense scrutiny. I think in some quarters there is clearly a
:00:36. > :00:50.perception that we are not as accountable as we should be. Police
:00:51. > :00:52.killing Mark Duggan was ruled lawful. But the shooting remains
:00:53. > :00:57.highly controversial. The jury said Mark didn't have a gun in his hand
:00:58. > :00:59.so you tell me what you get from that verdict. Tonight Panorama
:01:00. > :01:08.reveals police ignored official warnings that operations like this
:01:09. > :01:14.one were too risky. He didn't know what was going on. He was confused.
:01:15. > :01:18.He was looking around and then crack, crack, crack, and that was
:01:19. > :01:20.it. An officer in the Met might be charged with murder. In Manchester,
:01:21. > :01:27.another police shooting means the Chief Constable is facing
:01:28. > :01:34.prosecution. Once again we have a situation where it appears an
:01:35. > :01:37.unarmed man was shot dead by police. Britain's elite firearms officers
:01:38. > :01:40.normally remain in the shadows. Tonight they speak out to defend
:01:41. > :01:44.what they're asked to do. Why did you kill someone? I killed someone
:01:45. > :01:48.because I thought my colleagues and I were about to die. Would you do it
:01:49. > :02:11.again? If the situation was exactly the same then yes.
:02:12. > :02:18.This is the Metropolitan Police's elite firearms unit practising one
:02:19. > :02:23.of its most dangerous tactics. These are covert operations carried out by
:02:24. > :02:30.officers in plain clothes. State Amber. Amber received Charlie. These
:02:31. > :02:34.officers belong to the unit involved in killing Mark Duggan. An operation
:02:35. > :02:39.like this led to his death. State red. State red. State red. It's
:02:40. > :02:47.known as the hard stop. Strike, strike, strike. Show your hands. Get
:02:48. > :02:53.out the car. Get down. Put your hands where I can see them. Out of
:02:54. > :02:59.the car on the floor. Get your hands out where I can see them. Prisoner
:03:00. > :03:03.secured. Going to roll you on your side. The hard stop is quick and
:03:04. > :03:07.aggressive. The police say it has to be to get results. It's about
:03:08. > :03:12.domination. It's about being dynamic. It's catching them in a
:03:13. > :03:16.moment of unsteadiness or unpreparedness in as much as we're
:03:17. > :03:23.ready to react, they're not. We can react. Do you want them to have no
:03:24. > :03:28.time to think? We want to get control of that person as quickly as
:03:29. > :03:30.we possibly can. But this approach of deliberately confronting armed
:03:31. > :03:34.suspects has led to three controversial fatal shootings by the
:03:35. > :03:43.police. Azelle Rodney and Mark Duggan in London, and Anthony
:03:44. > :03:46.Grainger in Manchester. I think the key ingredients in these cases have
:03:47. > :03:49.been the most confrontational and aggressive form of response that has
:03:50. > :04:01.too often been disproportionate to the risk posed and has also placed
:04:02. > :04:05.the public at potential risk. An inquest has ruled Mark Duggan's
:04:06. > :04:08.killing was lawful. But it still left questions about police firearms
:04:09. > :04:16.operations and the accountability of the officers doing them. We are
:04:17. > :04:20.going to fight until we have no breath in our body for our justice.
:04:21. > :04:32.We are not moving on. No justice, no peace! No justice, no peace.
:04:33. > :04:37.Firearms officers at the front line know they are always at risk of
:04:38. > :04:45.being prosecuted for murder if they get it wrong.
:04:46. > :04:49.These two Metropolitan Police officers have both killed armed
:04:50. > :04:55.suspects. The shootings were later ruled justified. But they'd faced
:04:56. > :04:57.months of investigation. It's extremely difficult, especially when
:04:58. > :05:00.you think you're doing something good to, you know, protect the
:05:01. > :05:07.public and protect your colleagues, when you then face the potential of
:05:08. > :05:11.prosecution. Are you still convinced you did the right thing? A hundred
:05:12. > :05:16.percent convinced even today, years and years after the event. There's
:05:17. > :05:19.still times where I think of the incident and think, is there
:05:20. > :05:22.anything that I could have done differently? Is there anything that
:05:23. > :05:25.could have been done to have saved that man's life, to have prevented
:05:26. > :05:31.us from shooting him? And there isn't. Would you do it again? Yes.
:05:32. > :05:35.This is the public face of armed policing. Uniformed officers on
:05:36. > :05:40.permanent patrol in every police force in Britain ready to respond
:05:41. > :05:43.quickly to any firearms incident. It might be someone involved in a
:05:44. > :05:49.domestic dispute or, nowadays, a terrorist intent en masse murder. As
:05:50. > :05:55.the nature of the armed threat has developed so has the way the police
:05:56. > :05:59.tackles it. The overwhelming ethos that officers were trained in during
:06:00. > :06:04.the 80s and early 90s was one of containment. Now there is a more
:06:05. > :06:11.proactive, pre-emptive approach to engage suspects rather than contain
:06:12. > :06:15.incidents. And every police instructor will tell you that the
:06:16. > :06:16.more you engage, the more you move from containment, the more dangerous
:06:17. > :06:30.it gets for all concerned. We've obtained this police video
:06:31. > :06:35.that shows how far armed policing has advanced. People traffickers had
:06:36. > :06:40.taken hostages in London and were demanding money from their relatives
:06:41. > :06:45.to release them. The tactics appear militaristic. But storming the
:06:46. > :06:53.building safely released the hostages. I don't think militaristic
:06:54. > :06:56.is a helpful word. We have tactics to use in a whole range of
:06:57. > :07:00.scenarios, whether we choose to make an arrest of an armed criminal who's
:07:01. > :07:04.in a house, who's walking down a street, who's in a car... Whether we
:07:05. > :07:07.choose to... I don't know. TV slang, stake out a plot for an armed
:07:08. > :07:10.robbery team, we have all the tactics available for those
:07:11. > :07:21.different scenarios. The police also train snipers to open fire without
:07:22. > :07:28.warning. Police are expecting a security van to be robbed. Two
:07:29. > :07:36.firearms officers are hiding nearby. They're snipers. Robbery, robbery,
:07:37. > :07:38.he's got a gun to his head. Robbery, robbery, strike, strike. He's
:07:39. > :07:42.running towards the guard. Both men were shot dead by the snipers. The
:07:43. > :07:45.killings were ruled lawful because of the extreme danger the security
:07:46. > :07:50.guard was in. But lethal police tactics like using snipers has not
:07:51. > :07:55.been widely discussed. They're not debated. They are not part of a
:07:56. > :07:59.broader public consultation at all. It seems to me that there's
:08:00. > :08:04.absolutely a case for a much more wide and open and shared debate
:08:05. > :08:09.about just that sort of thing. Firearms officers are trained to use
:08:10. > :08:12.lethal force. But officers who've had to kill someone say you are
:08:13. > :08:18.never fully prepared for the consequences. You are trying to
:08:19. > :08:21.justify why you have done this. You second guess yourself to think was
:08:22. > :08:25.there anything else I could have done and it is very, very difficult.
:08:26. > :08:29.I found out very quickly afterwards that it was fatal and all the
:08:30. > :08:33.training in the world will not prepare you to deal with having to
:08:34. > :08:38.kill someone. It is horrendous. It's absolutely horrendous. The police
:08:39. > :08:42.say that despite a more aggressive stance it is still rare for them to
:08:43. > :08:55.open fire, and extremely rare for them to kill someone. Figures over
:08:56. > :08:58.the last three years will show that of a total of around 12,000 armed
:08:59. > :09:01.operations, police in London have been involved in one fatal shooting
:09:02. > :09:04.during those 12,000 operations. So we would say that the figures speak
:09:05. > :09:10.for themselves and that the operations we conduct are the safest
:09:11. > :09:13.that you can possibly achieve. Looking beyond the past three years,
:09:14. > :09:18.police figures reveal a more disturbing pattern. Eight out of the
:09:19. > :09:21.ten people shot dead by the Met in the past decade have been killed
:09:22. > :09:25.during pre-planned operations. These are carried out by the most highly
:09:26. > :09:29.trained firearms officers. Pre-planned operations make up only
:09:30. > :09:40.a third of the total but they lead to by far the most fatal shootings.
:09:41. > :09:42.If we've got intelligence about armed robbers planning to rob
:09:43. > :09:45.jewellery shops, Securicor vans, whatever, if we've got intelligence
:09:46. > :09:48.about gang criminals carrying guns across London to go and shoot
:09:49. > :09:55.others, we have to plan operations to confront that threat. But a case
:09:56. > :09:59.that goes back to 2005 is now putting armed police operations
:10:00. > :10:03.under intense scrutiny. Colombian drug dealers had arrived in London
:10:04. > :10:08.and set up a cocaine deal with a local gang. But the police had
:10:09. > :10:13.intelligence that the gang intended to rob the Colombians. So the
:10:14. > :10:17.Metropolitan Police had put the local gang under surveillance. One
:10:18. > :10:25.of them was already wanted for a double stabbing. George! He's back
:10:26. > :10:30.to the car with the bag! This man, Azelle Rodney. The police suspected
:10:31. > :10:36.he was collecting guns for the robbery. Into the driver's side.
:10:37. > :10:40.Azelle Rodney and another man drove to North West London. They were
:10:41. > :10:45.followed by a police surveillance team. Secret aerial surveillance was
:10:46. > :10:53.also being used. The gang's phones were probably tapped too. Azelle
:10:54. > :10:59.Rodney and the others were watched as they made arrangements to collect
:11:00. > :11:06.more weapons. The surveillance team then called a covert firearms unit
:11:07. > :11:08.to provide support. It's an operation that involves plain
:11:09. > :11:12.clothes officers that, you know, shouldn't be seen by the public and
:11:13. > :11:16.shouldn't be seen by the criminals that we're targeting. Then there was
:11:17. > :11:20.startling new intelligence. The surveillance team reported the gang
:11:21. > :11:24.had picked up a machine gun. This was passed on to the firearms unit.
:11:25. > :11:31.Its officers always have to take such information seriously. That
:11:32. > :11:37.must change your mindset, doesn't it? Absolutely, yeah. You need to be
:11:38. > :11:40.aware of that, especially because if you think about the weaponry and the
:11:41. > :11:46.intent of the person that you're facing, then that of course is going
:11:47. > :11:51.to change your mindset. But you need to really deal with what you're
:11:52. > :11:57.faced with as well. The firearms unit followed Azelle Rodney and the
:11:58. > :12:00.two other men. They had a rough idea where the robbery would happen and
:12:01. > :12:05.planned to intercept the gang before they got there. It was going to be a
:12:06. > :12:14.hard stop. The same tactic that resulted in the death of Mark
:12:15. > :12:18.Duggan. They're always dangerous. You're so close, having to act so
:12:19. > :12:22.quickly, isn't there always a risk that you can get it wrong? I'm not
:12:23. > :12:26.going to say this isn't a risky business because it is. But there's
:12:27. > :12:30.always a thing in the back of your mind saying to double check all the
:12:31. > :12:35.time, to think am I doing this right? Am I acting in the right
:12:36. > :12:39.manner? Time was running out as they reached this suburban street. The
:12:40. > :12:45.final stages of the operation were filmed by an officer in the last
:12:46. > :12:51.police vehicle. Easy, easy. Is he turning in the back seat? The armed
:12:52. > :12:54.convoy was heading towards this pub. It was a bank holiday Saturday
:12:55. > :13:01.evening. Leon Gittens was waiting for his children. I went out to just
:13:02. > :13:06.see them across the road and had a quick fag. If suitable we are
:13:07. > :13:14.looking to do it at the roundabout if he stops. I heard a car screech,
:13:15. > :13:19.tyres screeching. Attack, attack. Right, we are going in? In we go.
:13:20. > :13:25.Ok. Hold on a tick. All right. Sweet, sweet as. Sweet as, sweet as.
:13:26. > :13:30.Bang, bang, bang. I can't remember exactly how many. Three, four maybe
:13:31. > :13:35.five. The glass exploded in front of me, I got showered with glass. The
:13:36. > :13:40.guy in the back kind of bounced up into the car, his head hit the top
:13:41. > :13:45.of the roof of the car and he came down and slumped up against the
:13:46. > :13:50.window. And you knew he'd been killed? Instantly, I saw holes,
:13:51. > :13:53.bullet holes in his head and I remember thinking God, I don't want
:13:54. > :13:55.my sons to see this. I couldn't believe that I'd just seen someone
:13:56. > :14:08.killed in front of me. Police say that a man shot dead by
:14:09. > :14:14.officers in North London was holding a gun.
:14:15. > :14:20.Azelle Rodney's mother first heard about the shooting on the news. Then
:14:21. > :14:27.friends phoned saying it might be Azelle. It wasn't until the next day
:14:28. > :14:30.when I actually heard what had happened. Two officers actually came
:14:31. > :14:35.around my house eventually and they said that he'd been shot and that
:14:36. > :14:41.was it. That's all they could say and I just knew there was something.
:14:42. > :14:45.A lot more than what met the eye. Ok, guys, this is an eight round
:14:46. > :14:50.shoot, in the low form position. First four to the body, second four
:14:51. > :14:54.to the head. Armed officers' training used to focus on shooting
:14:55. > :14:56.at the body. Now it includes firing at the head, as happened to Azelle
:14:57. > :15:15.Rodney. Why would you instruct officers to
:15:16. > :15:18.fire at the body and then the head? If the threat is still there and
:15:19. > :15:22.they've fired a shot to the body, then the thought process will be, or
:15:23. > :15:27.could be, that they're wearing body armour. Clearly we need to stop that
:15:28. > :15:31.threat. To kill them? To stop that threat. Shooting in the head means
:15:32. > :15:34.killing them? Well, we shoot to stop.
:15:35. > :15:38.Investigating Azelle Rodney's death was the responsibility of the then
:15:39. > :15:45.newly established Independent Police Complaints Commission.
:15:46. > :15:51.Eight months later, it produced its report.
:15:52. > :15:53.The IPCC's report rejected the family's complaints. No police
:15:54. > :15:59.officer was prosecuted or disciplined. But behind the scenes,
:16:00. > :16:02.the IPCC did have concerns about the Met's armed operations, and these
:16:03. > :16:06.were passed on to the police in confidence.
:16:07. > :16:12.As far back as 2005, the IPCC was worried about the dangers of how
:16:13. > :16:17.armed suspects were being confronted during hard stops. The secret
:16:18. > :16:24.recommendation to the Met described hard stops as a high-risk option,
:16:25. > :16:26.especially for suspects. The recommendation said, if their
:16:27. > :16:34.compliance and surrender is not virtually instantaneous, the risks
:16:35. > :16:39.to the suspect are considerable. The IPCC recommended the Met review its
:16:40. > :16:42.use of the hard stop. But as we saw, armed officers are still being
:16:43. > :16:45.trained to use them. Following the Rodney shooting, the
:16:46. > :16:56.IPCC, in its December 2005 report, asked that the Met review the hard
:16:57. > :16:59.stop. What did the Met do? As I understand, at the time, there were
:17:00. > :17:03.no formal changes, there were no major changes to the tactic. It was
:17:04. > :17:06.a national tactic at that time. Whilst there have been small changes
:17:07. > :17:10.over the year, over the years, there was no major change, it remained.
:17:11. > :17:13.There was no review? Not... Certainly not a formal review, no.
:17:14. > :17:16.But this is the independent body overseeing policing, making the
:17:17. > :17:23.recommendation that you review the hard stop procedure, and it wasn't
:17:24. > :17:26.done? And perhaps some formal paperwork and formal thinking should
:17:27. > :17:30.have been done at the time. It wasn't, but we're constantly looking
:17:31. > :17:33.at the tactic, and if anyone has a better idea on how you confront
:17:34. > :17:36.armed criminals in vehicles with a view to arresting them safely and
:17:37. > :17:40.seizing their weapons, then we're up for better ideas. People say review,
:17:41. > :17:44.people don't come forward with better ideas.
:17:45. > :17:47.In 2011, nearly six years after the IPCC's recommendation, a fatal
:17:48. > :17:53.police shooting again followed a hard stop in north London.
:17:54. > :18:08.Despite the IPCC's concerns, no significant changes to the hard stop
:18:09. > :18:14.tactic had been carried out. It is not for the IPCC to enforce
:18:15. > :18:21.recommendations. That is for others to do. We are not the sole body in
:18:22. > :18:26.the picture here. But they're fairly meaningless. If they're not taken
:18:27. > :18:30.up, you have no powers to force them. On the contrary, I think moral
:18:31. > :18:33.persuasion is an extremely powerful sanction, and the questions will be
:18:34. > :18:37.asked, rightly so, if we have to make a recommendation twice, then I
:18:38. > :18:40.think there is a legitimate question to be said, well, why don't you
:18:41. > :18:42.make, give, effect this the first time round?
:18:43. > :18:46.Seven years on, Azelle Rodney's mother still hadn't found out why
:18:47. > :18:49.her son had died. Susan, can we just ask what you are hoping for today?
:18:50. > :18:52.An inquest had collapsed when the coroner wasn't allowed to see the
:18:53. > :18:59.Met's secret intelligence, including phone taps and aerial surveillance.
:19:00. > :19:04.But under European human rights law, the Government was forced to hold a
:19:05. > :19:09.public inquiry. They couldn't just come and tell me that, you know, my
:19:10. > :19:19.son had been shot and that's it, you know. If it never went full... If we
:19:20. > :19:22.didn't do what we'd done and we didn't have an inquiry, we would
:19:23. > :19:24.have never really known what really happened.
:19:25. > :19:27.The inquiry looked in detail at the shooting and the way hard stop was
:19:28. > :19:33.carried out. The police's video footage was crucial to the analysis.
:19:34. > :19:37.Sweet as, sweet as, sweet as. In total, eight shots had been fired
:19:38. > :19:45.in quick succession towards a crowded pub. One of the bullets had
:19:46. > :19:47.narrowly missed Leon Gittens. God forbid if my children witnessed
:19:48. > :19:51.their father being shot accidentally by a police operation on a bank
:19:52. > :19:55.holiday Saturday afternoon outside a busy pub on a busy roundabout, you
:19:56. > :20:04.know, on a busy main road in north London. I mean, for God's sake.
:20:05. > :20:07.The inquiry found little thought had been given to anyone's safety - the
:20:08. > :20:19.suspects, the police officers involved, or the public.
:20:20. > :20:23.A member of the public nearly got killed. I think it's fair to say
:20:24. > :20:26.that comments made about the conduct of the stop within the inquiry,
:20:27. > :20:30.we've taken that on board, and we will look to make sure that in our
:20:31. > :20:33.training that we develop our tactics and our learning to minimise the
:20:34. > :20:36.risk to the public. The police's intelligence about a
:20:37. > :20:41.machine gun had been wrong, but three poor quality handguns were
:20:42. > :20:44.recovered. The two men who were in the car with Azelle Rodney admitting
:20:45. > :20:49.having the firearms and were later jailed. So whatever the police
:20:50. > :20:53.thought he was doing, they were following him from the day before,
:20:54. > :20:57.and they had ample time to stop and arrest them if they thought they
:20:58. > :21:00.were doing something. Unlike the IPCC, the Azelle Rodney
:21:01. > :21:07.inquiry carried out a thorough investigation. Before the hearings
:21:08. > :21:08.got under way, it even staged a reconstruction of the last moments
:21:09. > :21:18.of Azelle Rodney's life. Azelle Rodney's shooting was subject
:21:19. > :21:22.to detailed forensic investigation. Computers from the police cars had
:21:23. > :21:25.recorded their exact movements. Forensic scientists had that video
:21:26. > :21:31.of the shooting, and they tracked and timed every bullet that had
:21:32. > :21:35.struck Azelle Rodney. For the first time, there was more to go on than
:21:36. > :21:40.the accounts of witnesses. Most of those, of course, had come from the
:21:41. > :21:45.police officers involved. The officer who opened fire was
:21:46. > :21:49.given the code name E7. He told the inquiry he'd never seen Azelle
:21:50. > :21:53.Rodney holding a gun but saw him reach down as if to pick one up,
:21:54. > :22:01.then turn quickly towards him. Ballistic tests showed this couldn't
:22:02. > :22:05.be true. Azelle Rodney was still sitting upright when he was first
:22:06. > :22:08.shot. The first shot that hit in the arm would have immediately disabled
:22:09. > :22:12.him. Then the next shot that hits him, hits him in the back as he's
:22:13. > :22:16.falling down. It's when his head comes to rest on the edge of the
:22:17. > :22:20.passenger window nearest E7 that E7 at that point fires the last four
:22:21. > :22:23.bullets. Two near his ear and the other two right at the top of his
:22:24. > :22:31.head. Under the law, any police officer
:22:32. > :22:39.who opens fire must justify every single shot.
:22:40. > :22:45.And how is each round justified? What threshold do they have to meet
:22:46. > :22:49.to justify that? They need to stop the threat in front of them. If that
:22:50. > :22:56.threat requires one shot, and that criminal stops, then they've
:22:57. > :22:58.justified that. Should it continue, then they need to justify the next
:22:59. > :23:05.round. Last July, the inquiry rejected the
:23:06. > :23:11.police officer E7's account of the shooting. It ruled that Azelle
:23:12. > :23:17.Rodney had not been given a chance to surrender. He'd been unlawfully
:23:18. > :23:21.killed. The chairman's report, after detailed study of the evidence, is
:23:22. > :23:27.that he is sure and satisfied he shares my view.
:23:28. > :23:32.E7's appealing to the High Court to overturn the unlawful killing
:23:33. > :23:37.verdict. As things stand, he could be charged with murder. He's now
:23:38. > :23:41.retired from the Met after a distinguished career as a firearms
:23:42. > :23:47.officer. Before killing Azelle Rodney, E7 had previously shot dead
:23:48. > :23:53.two armed robbers. Both shootings were ruled lawful.
:23:54. > :23:57.Officers still serving in firearms unit refuse to accept the finding
:23:58. > :24:02.that Azelle Rodney was unlawfully killed.
:24:03. > :24:09.What was the reaction to that? I think of devastation, really. The
:24:10. > :24:13.officers strongly believe that this isn't the case, and we will always
:24:14. > :24:20.believe this isn't the case, because they were there for a lawful reason.
:24:21. > :24:29.Officers still believe that wasn't an unlawful killing? Yes. Despite
:24:30. > :24:32.the public inquiry? Yes. In Tottenham, the more recent
:24:33. > :24:36.killing of Mark Duggan again raised questions about the conduct of
:24:37. > :24:39.police firearms operations. There was little doubt Mark Duggan had
:24:40. > :24:43.just collected a weapon when the police stopped his taxi. But there
:24:44. > :24:47.was conflicting evidence about whether it was in his hand when he
:24:48. > :24:52.leapt out onto pavement and was shot.
:24:53. > :25:03.The inquest jury decided he wasn't carrying the gun. He'd already
:25:04. > :25:06.thrown it away. But they concluded the police officer was still
:25:07. > :25:10.justified in shooting Mark Duggan. It was a lawful killing. The jury
:25:11. > :25:16.are saying that the gun had been thrown prior to that encounter with
:25:17. > :25:20.that officer. So if they're saying the gun has been thrown, there is no
:25:21. > :25:27.gun in Mark Duggan's hand, and the threat that the officer's saying he
:25:28. > :25:31.has from the gun, it's not there. And he said he shot twice, because
:25:32. > :25:35.both times his eyes were glued to the gun in Mark's hand, yet the jury
:25:36. > :25:39.said Mark didn't have a gun in his hand. So you tell me, what do you
:25:40. > :26:00.get from that verdict? Mark Duggan's killing sparked riots.
:26:01. > :26:04.The ruling it was lawful won't end the controversy. The IPCC are still
:26:05. > :26:11.investigating. But the Metropolitan Police says it's been vindicated.
:26:12. > :26:15.You can never be celebratory about a death. We will run every operation
:26:16. > :26:23.with the intention of arresting people. We never want anybody to end
:26:24. > :26:26.up dead, that's awful. But ten ordinary men and women of London
:26:27. > :26:29.have trusted our officers. The latest fatal police shooting was
:26:30. > :26:32.in Manchester. It followed a familiar pattern. A covert firearms
:26:33. > :26:36.team intercepted what they'd been told was a team of armed robbers.
:26:37. > :26:42.Anthony Grainger was immediately shot dead as he sat in a parked car.
:26:43. > :26:46.Neither he or the men he was with were armed.
:26:47. > :26:51.Something needs to be done about the way that the police actually carry
:26:52. > :26:54.out operations in the future. We can't bring Anthony back, and that's
:26:55. > :27:03.heart-breaking, but I do think for families in the future something
:27:04. > :27:06.needs to change. Last week, the Crown Prosecution
:27:07. > :27:09.Service announced Greater Manchester Police was being prosecuted for
:27:10. > :27:13.health and safety failings. But it decided the firearms officer who'd
:27:14. > :27:16.killed Anthony Grainger would not be charged.
:27:17. > :27:24.To them, it's just a name, but for the families, it's real. For the
:27:25. > :27:27.families of the next victim and the families of the victims that have
:27:28. > :27:32.passed, it's real. There's just no justice.
:27:33. > :27:40.An inquest into Anthony Grainger's death is due to start in April.
:27:41. > :27:44.Another fatal shooting threatens to undermine trust in the police. But
:27:45. > :27:51.senior police officers believe deliberately confronting armed
:27:52. > :27:54.suspects is still vital. I think it is inevitable that these sort of
:27:55. > :27:57.operations will lead to controversial cases, but I wouldn't
:27:58. > :28:00.frame it in the context of armed policing. I'd frame it in the
:28:01. > :28:04.context of taking on gun crime. So this year, we're heading towards a
:28:05. > :28:07.25% reduction in shootings, on top of a 20% reduction last year. We're
:28:08. > :28:09.having a positive effect, because we put dangerous people in prison and
:28:10. > :28:16.take firearms off the streets. Fewer armed criminals and too many
:28:17. > :28:23.controversial police shootings are likely to lead to change. The way
:28:24. > :28:34.the police run armed operations is being questioned like never before.
:28:35. > :28:40.Next week, the Winter Olympics will be the most expensive ever, but are
:28:41. > :28:44.they also the most corrupt? John Sweeney investigates claims that
:28:45. > :28:45.billions of pounds have been stolen by Russian contractors and
:28:46. > :28:48.officials.