Page 6 - Top Cover Issue 4
P. 6
TOP COVER +557'
5%+'0%' 10 6*' 564''6
E7
A Scientific View
n 30th April 2005, Azelle Rodney
was shot dead by E7, a very
experienced Met Police specialist
Firearms Officer. Rodney was the
rear seat passenger in a silver VW
Golf; he was in company with two
other men – all three on route to rob
Oa gang of Columbian drugs dealers at
gunpoint. Inside their VW were three handguns. T e intelligence
suggested automatic or possibly machine pistols. As the armed
interception was called, E7 was in a covering vehicle, positioned
alongside the rear seat of the Golf next to Rodney. As Officers
advanced, E7’s perception of the movements and intention of
Rodney led him to discharge his G36 – eight shots were fired in
around two seconds.
±1((+%'45 /756 %1056#06.; #55'55 In July 2013 Sir Christopher Holland, a retired High Court
Judge, published his view on the actions of E7 having considered
6*' 6*4'#6 215'& $; 6*' 57$,'%6 evidence presented at a Public Inquiry. He made the following
remarks specifically in relation to honestly held belief: “E7’s
#0& 6*' %106+07#0%' 1( 6*4'#6 accounts of what he saw are not to be accepted. Prior to firing he did
not believe that the man who turned out to be Azelle Rodney had
6*' 07/$'4 #0& 5'37'0%+0) 1( picked up a gun and was about to use it. Further, on the basis of
4170&5 (+4'& 9+.. &'2'0& 7210 what he was able to see, he could not rationally have believed that.”
Sir Christopher concludes: “I am wholly satisfied that firing so as
6*' %+4%7/56#0%'5 6*#6 ':+56 #6 to kill him was disproportionate and therefore unreasonable and
unlawful – even if it were proportionate to open fire at all, there
6*' 6+/'² #%21 #22 would be no basis for firing the fatal fifth to eight shots.”
FCXKFDNQEMUKFIG"OUP EQO 8+57#. +..7564#6+10 ,7&)/'06#. &'%+5+105 #0& *10'56 *'.&
FCXKF DNQEMUKFIG"OGV 2QNKEG WM $'.+'( 9*#6 &1 57&&'0 /18'/'065 /'#0 61 ;17! &1 ;17 5*116
14 9#+6!
