Equality before the law is a fundamental democratic principle, armed police should not get special treatment

23 October 2024, 16:05

Equality before the law is a fundamental democratic principle.

Changing the rules for investigating and prosecuting police officers at criminal trials or inquests is an affront on the rule of law that will make everyone less safe.

Particularly black and ethnic minority communities – it is no coincidence that since 2005 every unarmed man shot dead by police was black.

Police benefit from greater powers than everyone else, they can carry and use weapons during the course of their duties.

Yet there are clear parameters limiting their use of force: they need to honestly believe that it is proportionate, reasonable and necessary.

It is due to such disparity of powers that when police use violence they should continue facing close scrutiny, not immunity.

Those who are subjected to such force have the right to challenge its lawfulness - to suggest otherwise risks granting the police carte blanche to use violence with no accountability.

Over the past year, settlements paid by the London Metropolitan Police more than doubled to £7.6 million, to resolve claims including allegations of misconduct by officers.

How can it reasonably be suggested that it should be harder to prosecute officers, while there are so many incidents of sexual misconduct, racial bias and excessive force?

The Crown Prosecution Service are supposed to be making charging decisions independently from political pressure.

They have an ongoing duty to review the evidence and ensure a prosecution remains in the public interest.

There are countless cases where, notwithstanding arguments made by the defence to review and ‘drop the charges’, defendants do end up facing public trials and are ultimately acquitted.

This is often hugely detrimental to defendants’ mental health and their reputation, but it is the nature of a public criminal justice system.

Suggesting police officers alone deserve shielding from this is reactionary and undemocratic.

Chris Kaba was shot dead by a police officer. He was in his car, unarmed. Following a 13-second long footage, the prosecution argued that when he was shot, he was stationary and could not have been a threat.

At that point, the officer did not know who Chris Kaba was, his previous convictions or his alleged recent involvement in a shooting.

If Chris Kaba’s death should teach us anything, that is the danger of arming police officers with lethal weapons. It is not lowering their accountability when they kill members of the public.

Francesca Cociani is a Senior Associate in the criminal defence team at Hodge Jones & Allen

LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk