Page 18 - Top Cover Issue 6

18 TOP COVER ISSUE 6

here has been much in the news recently regarding the a public enquiry, chaired by Sir Christopher Holland last year,
verdict of the Inquest into the death of Mark Duggan and that he had “no lawful justification” for shooting Mr Rodney.
the more recent High Court decision on the Azelle Rodney He tried to bring the case on the grounds that it was “irrational”
shooting. for the inquiry to conclude he had no reason to believe Mr
Rodney was about to use a weapon.
The Mark Duggan Inquest jury returned a verdict of ‘Lawful But Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division,
Killing’ with several key questions and answers forming the basis said E7’s points were “unarguable”.
of that verdict. Without doubt much has been discussed over “The hurdle of proving that Sir Christopher reached irrational
question 5 and whether Mr Duggan had the gun in his hand conclusions on the facts is incapable of being surmounted,” he
when he was shot by police. The jury believed by a majority of added.
8-1 that he did not have the gun in his hand at the moment he “Having said that, although we accept that the approach which
was shot. This of course has to be taken in context with what the he adopted was open to challenge, having dealt extensively with
other answers were leading up to question 5. The jury did believe that issue, we see no value in granting permission to pursue the
that he was in possession of a gun in the mini cab immediately issue further, in circumstances where it could not change the
prior to the police stopping it. We then have the issue that by a fundamental conclusion of the Inquiry.”
majority of 9-1 they decided he threw the gun on to the grass
area, but 8 of the 9 decided it was more likely than not that Mark
Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the mini cab came to a Dear Sir,
halt and prior to any officers being on the pavement. Question
5 then deals with whether the gun was in his hand when he It was with a mixture of great sadness and anger when I watched the news after the verdict had been delivered at
the Mark Duggan trial.
was shot, 8-1 decided it was not. This contradicts the account of
V53 the principal officer, who engaged mark Duggan because A jury of ‘the people’ had delivered a verdict of ‘Lawful’ killing of Duggan and based upon the evidence given at
he was holding a gun. The Duggan family are now seeking a the trial was the only verdict that could have been reached. However what was seen outside the court can only
judicial review and will no doubt be asking for another Inquest be described as total anarchy and disregard for the law. The Duggan family didn’t want justice - that and their
supporters wanted the riots to once again ‘kick off’ and raise the profile of ‘Police Brutality’ to the forefront of
or possibly a public Enquiry. our minds! This scene was not helped by other prominent figures in our society not denouncing what was being
shouted by frankly people who have bigger ‘chips’ on their shoulders than McCain.
Police Oracle reported on the High Court decision on the Azelle
Rodney shooting: When the Metropolitan Police Asst Commissioner attempted to read a statement, he was heckled by the ‘mob’. Why
was the mob allowed to do this? Then within the statement the Met have announced that they “didn’t do enough
to support the Duggan family.” I think that I was as shocked as most of the country at that point! Why did they feel
The Metropolitan Police firearms officer involved in the Azelle the need to have supported a known villain’s family, but more importantly where was the support for the Firearms
Rodney shooting has failed in a bid to challenge a public Officers?
inquiry’s finding that he should not have shot a suspect dead. From the normal person on the street, who is a taxpayer, the Metropolitan Police have failed me, the general public
The officer, known only as E7, fatally opened fire on Mr Rodney and more importantly their own officers, and it is the senior officers that should be held accountable. Over the
after a hard stop on the vehicle he was travelling in. years I have read much about police firearms officers, some good some bad, but what is apparent is that they put
The officer said he believed the man, who was suspected of their lives on the line on a daily basis often without the good work they do ever reaching the news! Someone told
me that these Men and Women run towards the fight to save us from having to run away from it, how true.
being en route to a robbery, was about to open a fire.
Now, the High Court has ruled E7 cannot challenge a finding by Name and address supplied.