Police: Shooting to Kill? Panorama

This is the rarely seen side of British policing. An elite firearms

unit in action. Rescuing a hostage from drug dealers. Tackling

dangerous criminals has to be done to protect the public. Can someone

go through the bag, please? But police firearms teams are under

intense scrutiny. I think in some quarters there is clearly a

perception that we are not as accountable as we should be. Police

killing Mark Duggan was ruled lawful. But the shooting remains

highly controversial. The jury said Mark didn't have a gun in his hand

so you tell me what you get from that verdict. Tonight Panorama

reveals police ignored official warnings that operations like this

one were too risky. He didn't know what was going on. He was confused.

He was looking around and then crack, crack, crack, and that was

it. An officer in the Met might be charged with murder. In Manchester,

another police shooting means the Chief Constable is facing

prosecution. Once again we have a situation where it appears an

unarmed man was shot dead by police. Britain's elite firearms officers

normally remain in the shadows. Tonight they speak out to defend

what they're asked to do. Why did you kill someone? I killed someone

because I thought my colleagues and I were about to die. Would you do it

again? If the situation was exactly the same then yes.

This is the Metropolitan Police's elite firearms unit practising one

of its most dangerous tactics. These are covert operations carried out by

officers in plain clothes. State Amber. Amber received Charlie. These

officers belong to the unit involved in killing Mark Duggan. An operation

like this led to his death. State red. State red. State red. It's

known as the hard stop. Strike, strike, strike. Show your hands. Get

out the car. Get down. Put your hands where I can see them. Out of

the car on the floor. Get your hands out where I can see them. Prisoner

secured. Going to roll you on your side. The hard stop is quick and

aggressive. The police say it has to be to get results. It's about

domination. It's about being dynamic. It's catching them in a

moment of unsteadiness or unpreparedness in as much as we're

ready to react, they're not. We can react. Do you want them to have no

time to think? We want to get control of that person as quickly as

we possibly can. But this approach of deliberately confronting armed

suspects has led to three controversial fatal shootings by the

police. Azelle Rodney and Mark Duggan in London, and Anthony

Grainger in Manchester. I think the key ingredients in these cases have

been the most confrontational and aggressive form of response that has

too often been disproportionate to the risk posed and has also placed

the public at potential risk. An inquest has ruled Mark Duggan's

killing was lawful. But it still left questions about police firearms

operations and the accountability of the officers doing them. We are

going to fight until we have no breath in our body for our justice.

We are not moving on. No justice, no peace! No justice, no peace.

Firearms officers at the front line know they are always at risk of

being prosecuted for murder if they get it wrong.

These two Metropolitan Police officers have both killed armed

suspects. The shootings were later ruled justified. But they'd faced

months of investigation. It's extremely difficult, especially when

you think you're doing something good to, you know, protect the

public and protect your colleagues, when you then face the potential of

prosecution. Are you still convinced you did the right thing? A hundred

percent convinced even today, years and years after the event. There's

still times where I think of the incident and think, is there

anything that I could have done differently? Is there anything that

could have been done to have saved that man's life, to have prevented

us from shooting him? And there isn't. Would you do it again? Yes.

This is the public face of armed policing. Uniformed officers on

permanent patrol in every police force in Britain ready to respond

quickly to any firearms incident. It might be someone involved in a

domestic dispute or, nowadays, a terrorist intent en masse murder. As

the nature of the armed threat has developed so has the way the police

tackles it. The overwhelming ethos that officers were trained in during

the 80s and early 90s was one of containment. Now there is a more

proactive, pre-emptive approach to engage suspects rather than contain

incidents. And every police instructor will tell you that the

more you engage, the more you move from containment, the more dangerous

it gets for all concerned. We've obtained this police video

that shows how far armed policing has advanced. People traffickers had

taken hostages in London and were demanding money from their relatives

to release them. The tactics appear militaristic. But storming the

building safely released the hostages. I don't think militaristic

is a helpful word. We have tactics to use in a whole range of

scenarios, whether we choose to make an arrest of an armed criminal who's

in a house, who's walking down a street, who's in a car... Whether we

choose to... I don't know. TV slang, stake out a plot for an armed

robbery team, we have all the tactics available for those

different scenarios. The police also train snipers to open fire without

warning. Police are expecting a security van to be robbed. Two

firearms officers are hiding nearby. They're snipers. Robbery, robbery,

he's got a gun to his head. Robbery, robbery, strike, strike. He's

running towards the guard. Both men were shot dead by the snipers. The

killings were ruled lawful because of the extreme danger the security

guard was in. But lethal police tactics like using snipers has not

been widely discussed. They're not debated. They are not part of a

broader public consultation at all. It seems to me that there's

absolutely a case for a much more wide and open and shared debate

about just that sort of thing. Firearms officers are trained to use

lethal force. But officers who've had to kill someone say you are

never fully prepared for the consequences. You are trying to

justify why you have done this. You second guess yourself to think was

there anything else I could have done and it is very, very difficult.

I found out very quickly afterwards that it was fatal and all the

training in the world will not prepare you to deal with having to

kill someone. It is horrendous. It's absolutely horrendous. The police

say that despite a more aggressive stance it is still rare for them to

open fire, and extremely rare for them to kill someone. Figures over

the last three years will show that of a total of around 12,000 armed

operations, police in London have been involved in one fatal shooting

during those 12,000 operations. So we would say that the figures speak

for themselves and that the operations we conduct are the safest

that you can possibly achieve. Looking beyond the past three years,

police figures reveal a more disturbing pattern. Eight out of the

ten people shot dead by the Met in the past decade have been killed

during pre-planned operations. These are carried out by the most highly

trained firearms officers. Pre-planned operations make up only

a third of the total but they lead to by far the most fatal shootings.

If we've got intelligence about armed robbers planning to rob

jewellery shops, Securicor vans, whatever, if we've got intelligence

about gang criminals carrying guns across London to go and shoot

others, we have to plan operations to confront that threat. But a case

that goes back to 2005 is now putting armed police operations

under intense scrutiny. Colombian drug dealers had arrived in London

and set up a cocaine deal with a local gang. But the police had

intelligence that the gang intended to rob the Colombians. So the

Metropolitan Police had put the local gang under surveillance. One

of them was already wanted for a double stabbing. George! He's back

to the car with the bag! This man, Azelle Rodney. The police suspected

he was collecting guns for the robbery. Into the driver's side.

Azelle Rodney and another man drove to North West London. They were

followed by a police surveillance team. Secret aerial surveillance was

also being used. The gang's phones were probably tapped too. Azelle

Rodney and the others were watched as they made arrangements to collect

more weapons. The surveillance team then called a covert firearms unit

to provide support. It's an operation that involves plain

clothes officers that, you know, shouldn't be seen by the public and

shouldn't be seen by the criminals that we're targeting. Then there was

startling new intelligence. The surveillance team reported the gang

had picked up a machine gun. This was passed on to the firearms unit.

Its officers always have to take such information seriously. That

must change your mindset, doesn't it? Absolutely, yeah. You need to be

aware of that, especially because if you think about the weaponry and the

intent of the person that you're facing, then that of course is going

to change your mindset. But you need to really deal with what you're

faced with as well. The firearms unit followed Azelle Rodney and the

two other men. They had a rough idea where the robbery would happen and

planned to intercept the gang before they got there. It was going to be a

hard stop. The same tactic that resulted in the death of Mark

Duggan. They're always dangerous. You're so close, having to act so

quickly, isn't there always a risk that you can get it wrong? I'm not

going to say this isn't a risky business because it is. But there's

always a thing in the back of your mind saying to double check all the

time, to think am I doing this right? Am I acting in the right

manner? Time was running out as they reached this suburban street. The

final stages of the operation were filmed by an officer in the last

police vehicle. Easy, easy. Is he turning in the back seat? The armed

convoy was heading towards this pub. It was a bank holiday Saturday

evening. Leon Gittens was waiting for his children. I went out to just

see them across the road and had a quick fag. If suitable we are

looking to do it at the roundabout if he stops. I heard a car screech,

tyres screeching. Attack, attack. Right, we are going in? In we go.

Ok. Hold on a tick. All right. Sweet, sweet as. Sweet as, sweet as.

Bang, bang, bang. I can't remember exactly how many. Three, four maybe

five. The glass exploded in front of me, I got showered with glass. The

guy in the back kind of bounced up into the car, his head hit the top

of the roof of the car and he came down and slumped up against the

window. And you knew he'd been killed? Instantly, I saw holes,

bullet holes in his head and I remember thinking God, I don't want

my sons to see this. I couldn't believe that I'd just seen someone

killed in front of me. Police say that a man shot dead by

officers in North London was holding a gun.

Azelle Rodney's mother first heard about the shooting on the news. Then

friends phoned saying it might be Azelle. It wasn't until the next day

when I actually heard what had happened. Two officers actually came

around my house eventually and they said that he'd been shot and that

was it. That's all they could say and I just knew there was something.

A lot more than what met the eye. Ok, guys, this is an eight round

shoot, in the low form position. First four to the body, second four

to the head. Armed officers' training used to focus on shooting

at the body. Now it includes firing at the head, as happened to Azelle

Rodney. Why would you instruct officers to

fire at the body and then the head? If the threat is still there and

they've fired a shot to the body, then the thought process will be, or

could be, that they're wearing body armour. Clearly we need to stop that

threat. To kill them? To stop that threat. Shooting in the head means

killing them? Well, we shoot to stop.

Investigating Azelle Rodney's death was the responsibility of the then

newly established Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Eight months later, it produced its report.

The IPCC's report rejected the family's complaints. No police

officer was prosecuted or disciplined. But behind the scenes,

the IPCC did have concerns about the Met's armed operations, and these

were passed on to the police in confidence.

As far back as 2005, the IPCC was worried about the dangers of how

armed suspects were being confronted during hard stops. The secret

recommendation to the Met described hard stops as a high-risk option,

especially for suspects. The recommendation said, if their

compliance and surrender is not virtually instantaneous, the risks

to the suspect are considerable. The IPCC recommended the Met review its

use of the hard stop. But as we saw, armed officers are still being

trained to use them. Following the Rodney shooting, the

IPCC, in its December 2005 report, asked that the Met review the hard

stop. What did the Met do? As I understand, at the time, there were

no formal changes, there were no major changes to the tactic. It was

a national tactic at that time. Whilst there have been small changes

over the year, over the years, there was no major change, it remained.

There was no review? Not... Certainly not a formal review, no.

But this is the independent body overseeing policing, making the

recommendation that you review the hard stop procedure, and it wasn't

done? And perhaps some formal paperwork and formal thinking should

have been done at the time. It wasn't, but we're constantly looking

at the tactic, and if anyone has a better idea on how you confront

armed criminals in vehicles with a view to arresting them safely and

seizing their weapons, then we're up for better ideas. People say review,

people don't come forward with better ideas.

In 2011, nearly six years after the IPCC's recommendation, a fatal

police shooting again followed a hard stop in north London.

Despite the IPCC's concerns, no significant changes to the hard stop

tactic had been carried out. It is not for the IPCC to enforce

recommendations. That is for others to do. We are not the sole body in

the picture here. But they're fairly meaningless. If they're not taken

up, you have no powers to force them. On the contrary, I think moral

persuasion is an extremely powerful sanction, and the questions will be

asked, rightly so, if we have to make a recommendation twice, then I

think there is a legitimate question to be said, well, why don't you

make, give, effect this the first time round?

Seven years on, Azelle Rodney's mother still hadn't found out why

her son had died. Susan, can we just ask what you are hoping for today?

An inquest had collapsed when the coroner wasn't allowed to see the

Met's secret intelligence, including phone taps and aerial surveillance.

But under European human rights law, the Government was forced to hold a

public inquiry. They couldn't just come and tell me that, you know, my

son had been shot and that's it, you know. If it never went full... If we

didn't do what we'd done and we didn't have an inquiry, we would

have never really known what really happened.

The inquiry looked in detail at the shooting and the way hard stop was

carried out. The police's video footage was crucial to the analysis.

Sweet as, sweet as, sweet as. In total, eight shots had been fired

in quick succession towards a crowded pub. One of the bullets had

narrowly missed Leon Gittens. God forbid if my children witnessed

their father being shot accidentally by a police operation on a bank

holiday Saturday afternoon outside a busy pub on a busy roundabout, you

know, on a busy main road in north London. I mean, for God's sake.

The inquiry found little thought had been given to anyone's safety - the

suspects, the police officers involved, or the public.

A member of the public nearly got killed. I think it's fair to say

that comments made about the conduct of the stop within the inquiry,

we've taken that on board, and we will look to make sure that in our

training that we develop our tactics and our learning to minimise the

risk to the public. The police's intelligence about a

machine gun had been wrong, but three poor quality handguns were

recovered. The two men who were in the car with Azelle Rodney admitting

having the firearms and were later jailed. So whatever the police

thought he was doing, they were following him from the day before,

and they had ample time to stop and arrest them if they thought they

were doing something. Unlike the IPCC, the Azelle Rodney

inquiry carried out a thorough investigation. Before the hearings

got under way, it even staged a reconstruction of the last moments

of Azelle Rodney's life. Azelle Rodney's shooting was subject

to detailed forensic investigation. Computers from the police cars had

recorded their exact movements. Forensic scientists had that video

of the shooting, and they tracked and timed every bullet that had

struck Azelle Rodney. For the first time, there was more to go on than

the accounts of witnesses. Most of those, of course, had come from the

police officers involved. The officer who opened fire was

given the code name E7. He told the inquiry he'd never seen Azelle

Rodney holding a gun but saw him reach down as if to pick one up,

then turn quickly towards him. Ballistic tests showed this couldn't

be true. Azelle Rodney was still sitting upright when he was first

shot. The first shot that hit in the arm would have immediately disabled

him. Then the next shot that hits him, hits him in the back as he's

falling down. It's when his head comes to rest on the edge of the

passenger window nearest E7 that E7 at that point fires the last four

bullets. Two near his ear and the other two right at the top of his

head. Under the law, any police officer

who opens fire must justify every single shot.

And how is each round justified? What threshold do they have to meet

to justify that? They need to stop the threat in front of them. If that

threat requires one shot, and that criminal stops, then they've

justified that. Should it continue, then they need to justify the next

round. Last July, the inquiry rejected the

police officer E7's account of the shooting. It ruled that Azelle

Rodney had not been given a chance to surrender. He'd been unlawfully

killed. The chairman's report, after detailed study of the evidence, is

that he is sure and satisfied he shares my view.

E7's appealing to the High Court to overturn the unlawful killing

verdict. As things stand, he could be charged with murder. He's now

retired from the Met after a distinguished career as a firearms

officer. Before killing Azelle Rodney, E7 had previously shot dead

two armed robbers. Both shootings were ruled lawful.

Officers still serving in firearms unit refuse to accept the finding

that Azelle Rodney was unlawfully killed.

What was the reaction to that? I think of devastation, really. The

officers strongly believe that this isn't the case, and we will always

believe this isn't the case, because they were there for a lawful reason.

Officers still believe that wasn't an unlawful killing? Yes. Despite

the public inquiry? Yes. In Tottenham, the more recent

killing of Mark Duggan again raised questions about the conduct of

police firearms operations. There was little doubt Mark Duggan had

just collected a weapon when the police stopped his taxi. But there

was conflicting evidence about whether it was in his hand when he

leapt out onto pavement and was shot.

The inquest jury decided he wasn't carrying the gun. He'd already

thrown it away. But they concluded the police officer was still

justified in shooting Mark Duggan. It was a lawful killing. The jury

are saying that the gun had been thrown prior to that encounter with

that officer. So if they're saying the gun has been thrown, there is no

gun in Mark Duggan's hand, and the threat that the officer's saying he

has from the gun, it's not there. And he said he shot twice, because

both times his eyes were glued to the gun in Mark's hand, yet the jury

said Mark didn't have a gun in his hand. So you tell me, what do you

get from that verdict? Mark Duggan's killing sparked riots.

The ruling it was lawful won't end the controversy. The IPCC are still

investigating. But the Metropolitan Police says it's been vindicated.

You can never be celebratory about a death. We will run every operation

with the intention of arresting people. We never want anybody to end

up dead, that's awful. But ten ordinary men and women of London

have trusted our officers. The latest fatal police shooting was

in Manchester. It followed a familiar pattern. A covert firearms

team intercepted what they'd been told was a team of armed robbers.

Anthony Grainger was immediately shot dead as he sat in a parked car.

Neither he or the men he was with were armed.

Something needs to be done about the way that the police actually carry

out operations in the future. We can't bring Anthony back, and that's

heart-breaking, but I do think for families in the future something

needs to change. Last week, the Crown Prosecution

Service announced Greater Manchester Police was being prosecuted for

health and safety failings. But it decided the firearms officer who'd

killed Anthony Grainger would not be charged.

To them, it's just a name, but for the families, it's real. For the

families of the next victim and the families of the victims that have

passed, it's real. There's just no justice.

An inquest into Anthony Grainger's death is due to start in April.

Another fatal shooting threatens to undermine trust in the police. But

senior police officers believe deliberately confronting armed

suspects is still vital. I think it is inevitable that these sort of

operations will lead to controversial cases, but I wouldn't

frame it in the context of armed policing. I'd frame it in the

context of taking on gun crime. So this year, we're heading towards a

25% reduction in shootings, on top of a 20% reduction last year. We're

having a positive effect, because we put dangerous people in prison and

take firearms off the streets. Fewer armed criminals and too many

controversial police shootings are likely to lead to change. The way

the police run armed operations is being questioned like never before.

Next week, the Winter Olympics will be the most expensive ever, but are

they also the most corrupt? John Sweeney investigates claims that

billions of pounds have been stolen by Russian contractors and

officials.