Log in
Officer to appeal decision backing IOPC bid for misconduct case
Firearms officers will continue five-year process to “clear his name” after fatal shooting
The firearms officer who is facing a misconduct hearing five years after an incident in which a suspect was shot dead during an attempt to free two men convicted of a firearms offence is to appeal a decision made in the IOPC’s favour.
The officer, identified as W80 shot Jermaine Baker dead during an operation that stopped a planned snatch of two prisoners from a van near Wood Green Crown Court in north London in December 2015.
The case is highly significant for all firearms officers and planned operations involving AFOs as it centres around officer W80’s “honestly held belief” that his life was in danger because Jermaine Baker was reaching for a weapon. The officer is arguing that a criminal test of self defence should be applied to the IOPC’s attempt to launch a misconduct hearing against him.
Whereas the IOPC wants to be able to question that "honestly held belief" in a civil burden of proof misconduct hearing alleging excessive use of force.
Baker, 28, was among a group of men trying to free Izzet Eren and his co-defendant as they were transported from Wormwood Scrubs to be sentenced for a firearms offence.
Following an investigation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) directed that the Met should bring disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct against the officer.
W80 successfully challenged the decision in the High Court, but the IOPC appealed, and, in a ruling given on Friday, three leading judges overturned the High Court’s judgment.
The officer who is being supported by the Federation, will now apply for leave to appeal over Friday’s ruling.
Ken Marsh, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that officer W80 is being supported and “dealing with the outcome as best he can, and accepts that this is part of his journey to clear his name.”
Following Friday’s verdict National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for armed policing, Chief Constable Simon Chesterman, described the judgement as “disappointing.”
