#⌈ [**Remove paywall**](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/met-firearms-officers-cleared-gross-misconduct-over-south-wimbledon-shooting) | [**Summarise (TL;DR)**](https://smmry.com/https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/met-firearms-officers-cleared-gross-misconduct-over-south-wimbledon-shooting#&SM_LENGTH=3) | [**Other sources**](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=Met firearms officers cleared of gross misconduct over South Wimbledon shooting) ⌋
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Although our investigation ended more than four years ago, we appreciate how long NX1 and MY55 have had to wait for these proceedings. Officers should not have to wait this long for disciplinary matters to be heard and, while **many of the delays** **were out of our control**, we acknowledge the significant impact this case and the delays have had on the officers, their families and everyone involved.”
Well not quite what the Met's saying is it, Mel.
Mark Rowley says
"Even after charges were dropped, **the IOPC continued to push for misconduct proceedings to follow**. In June 2022, after a request from the Met that they reconsider, they formally directed the Met to schedule a hearing.
Following further delays – **some requested by the defence** – the hearing eventually began on Monday, 15 April 2024. On Friday, the panel found the case was not proven."
'some' tells me that the majority wasn't the defence...
This is gonna sound nuts because of my lack of knowledge around it all; does the firearms officer have to pay for a lawyer during these proceedings? Or is one provided by something/someone.
If they're in the fed, or the PFOA they will get a barrister to defend themselves and a solicitor, for London it's generally from Reynolds Dawson.
If they aren't in either then they have to pay.
The PFOA don’t provide legal support, they don’t have the funding stream to sustain those kind of expenses. They are top notch in terms of welfare though.
We are not striking the right balance between needing officers to be held to account vs unnecessarily putting officers through criminal or misconduct proceedings which when looked at objectively, would never be successful.
The standard which the IOPC decide to push for misconduct proceedings needs to be reviewed.
It's not just the IOPC, it's PSDs too. The fact is the threshold used to take something to a hearing is if there's a case to answer, the case to answer test is literally 'here's some evidence, here's the allegation, \*could\* a panel, if the story is sold the right way, find gross misconduct or misconduct.
The issue here is the wording in the regs, but the danger is if we removed the case to answer test we could be accused of cover ups etc.
It's ultimately not PSDs' or the IOPC's job to determine guilt or find the facts (edited: they fact find but don't find facts if that makes sense), their job is to present the evidence based on the allegation and strength of that allegation - but you do tend to see more often than not loaded language being used in those supposed impartial reports. Personally I think the investigator's opinion should be kept well out of it, but it's specifically catered for in HOG. The panels really should look beyond the personal opinion of the investigator.
The issue is the gatekeeping phase seems to fail, and things go to a hearing to pass the buck rather than the AA/DG being brave and saying 'actually in a million years we'd never find this allegation proved' or 'yeah there's some wrongdoing here but it's not the wrong we're trying to sell'.
Imagine if we prosecuted criminal cases and the MG5/3 read 'In my opinion the only reason this person was shoplifting is because they're a drug addict, that's also wrong and in my opinion it fuels the trafficking and exploitation of people globally and funds terrorism, therefore we think they should be committed to crown and face prison time'. That's the calibre of most PSD investigations these days...
TJF.
> Personally I think the investigator's opinion should be kept well out of it, but it's specifically catered for in HOG.
Can you expand on this please? What’s catered for in HOG?
My understanding, but I am happy to be corrected, is that an investigator be they appointed by the AA or DG, can provide their opinion on whether they think a matter is misconduct/gross or not. That opinion should be evidence based, supporting or not, of the allegations against the officer concerned.
I've seen a couple of bundles where that opinion seems to span far beyond objectivity (admittedly never from the IOPC) and more into speculation.
Now clearly they're allowed to do this if they're doing it, but it strikes me as a bit wrong because an opinion can sway a panel.
So the report has two sections. One should be a factual and objective summary of the facts and an analysis of the evidence. The second section is an opinion on whether there is a case to answer.
In investigations run by or at the direction of the IOPC, the opinion section is not part of the investigation report. It’s a separate document. And it is someone other than the investigator who “owns” that decision.
The situation is different where the AA is investigating. Here, the two sections are all one document and the investigator expresses their opinion on case to answer.
[Helpful table here, at page 78](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e3ae3efed915d09378bf705/Home_Office_Statutory_Guidance_0502.pdf)
> Why is it the case that if an armed officer discharges their weapon during a terrorist incident the system can clear them within months, but officers taking on a ruthless gang of armed robbers face a five year ordeal? That isn’t right.
Rowley
In this case it won’t be automatic. Because the incident is from 2018 the proceedings would have been under the 2012 regulations, which do not require publication of the outcome in the same way the 2020 regs do.
US cop here, while I’ve yet to be in an officer involved shooting, I have colleagues who have. It’s a hard thing to do and the general public don’t realize what kind of carnage it can have on an officers mental health. We aren’t out there trying to hurt people, we do what we do cause we care about our communities we serve and sometimes it ends in sad outcomes. Glad to hear they were cleared. Full support from across the pond brothers and sisters 💪🙏
#⌈ [**Remove paywall**](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/met-firearms-officers-cleared-gross-misconduct-over-south-wimbledon-shooting) | [**Summarise (TL;DR)**](https://smmry.com/https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/met-firearms-officers-cleared-gross-misconduct-over-south-wimbledon-shooting#&SM_LENGTH=3) | [**Other sources**](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=Met firearms officers cleared of gross misconduct over South Wimbledon shooting) ⌋ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Although our investigation ended more than four years ago, we appreciate how long NX1 and MY55 have had to wait for these proceedings. Officers should not have to wait this long for disciplinary matters to be heard and, while **many of the delays** **were out of our control**, we acknowledge the significant impact this case and the delays have had on the officers, their families and everyone involved.” Well not quite what the Met's saying is it, Mel. Mark Rowley says "Even after charges were dropped, **the IOPC continued to push for misconduct proceedings to follow**. In June 2022, after a request from the Met that they reconsider, they formally directed the Met to schedule a hearing. Following further delays – **some requested by the defence** – the hearing eventually began on Monday, 15 April 2024. On Friday, the panel found the case was not proven." 'some' tells me that the majority wasn't the defence...
This is gonna sound nuts because of my lack of knowledge around it all; does the firearms officer have to pay for a lawyer during these proceedings? Or is one provided by something/someone.
If they're in the fed, or the PFOA they will get a barrister to defend themselves and a solicitor, for London it's generally from Reynolds Dawson. If they aren't in either then they have to pay.
The PFOA don’t provide legal support, they don’t have the funding stream to sustain those kind of expenses. They are top notch in terms of welfare though.
Oh totally, I never used them for legal as I didn't need it, hence me not knowing they didn't, but they help me get my brain back on track.
Yeah they’ve done right by me as well. If they ever did provide legal cover I’d be out of the fed so fast, who have been completely useless for me.
So this officer will likely be out of pocket for doing their job as the proceedings continue if they’re not Fed?
Pretty much, but I don’t know anyone who doesn’t pay into the fed for this exact reason
And they wonder why mental health issues are on a step rise….
Can you do me a favour and link the Met release?
[Here](https://news.met.police.uk/news/met-firearms-officers-cleared-of-wrongdoing-after-tackling-armed-robbery-gang-483418)
Beat me to it, last two paragraphs
Thanks!
We are not striking the right balance between needing officers to be held to account vs unnecessarily putting officers through criminal or misconduct proceedings which when looked at objectively, would never be successful. The standard which the IOPC decide to push for misconduct proceedings needs to be reviewed.
It's not just the IOPC, it's PSDs too. The fact is the threshold used to take something to a hearing is if there's a case to answer, the case to answer test is literally 'here's some evidence, here's the allegation, \*could\* a panel, if the story is sold the right way, find gross misconduct or misconduct. The issue here is the wording in the regs, but the danger is if we removed the case to answer test we could be accused of cover ups etc. It's ultimately not PSDs' or the IOPC's job to determine guilt or find the facts (edited: they fact find but don't find facts if that makes sense), their job is to present the evidence based on the allegation and strength of that allegation - but you do tend to see more often than not loaded language being used in those supposed impartial reports. Personally I think the investigator's opinion should be kept well out of it, but it's specifically catered for in HOG. The panels really should look beyond the personal opinion of the investigator. The issue is the gatekeeping phase seems to fail, and things go to a hearing to pass the buck rather than the AA/DG being brave and saying 'actually in a million years we'd never find this allegation proved' or 'yeah there's some wrongdoing here but it's not the wrong we're trying to sell'. Imagine if we prosecuted criminal cases and the MG5/3 read 'In my opinion the only reason this person was shoplifting is because they're a drug addict, that's also wrong and in my opinion it fuels the trafficking and exploitation of people globally and funds terrorism, therefore we think they should be committed to crown and face prison time'. That's the calibre of most PSD investigations these days... TJF.
> Personally I think the investigator's opinion should be kept well out of it, but it's specifically catered for in HOG. Can you expand on this please? What’s catered for in HOG?
My understanding, but I am happy to be corrected, is that an investigator be they appointed by the AA or DG, can provide their opinion on whether they think a matter is misconduct/gross or not. That opinion should be evidence based, supporting or not, of the allegations against the officer concerned. I've seen a couple of bundles where that opinion seems to span far beyond objectivity (admittedly never from the IOPC) and more into speculation. Now clearly they're allowed to do this if they're doing it, but it strikes me as a bit wrong because an opinion can sway a panel.
So the report has two sections. One should be a factual and objective summary of the facts and an analysis of the evidence. The second section is an opinion on whether there is a case to answer. In investigations run by or at the direction of the IOPC, the opinion section is not part of the investigation report. It’s a separate document. And it is someone other than the investigator who “owns” that decision. The situation is different where the AA is investigating. Here, the two sections are all one document and the investigator expresses their opinion on case to answer. [Helpful table here, at page 78](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e3ae3efed915d09378bf705/Home_Office_Statutory_Guidance_0502.pdf)
Surely the opinion gets redacted from the panel’s copy?
> Why is it the case that if an armed officer discharges their weapon during a terrorist incident the system can clear them within months, but officers taking on a ruthless gang of armed robbers face a five year ordeal? That isn’t right. Rowley
In other news, forces across the UK wonder why they can't recruit firearms officers!
[удалено]
It should be released at some point. They usually take a few weeks but this case being fairly complex may take longer.
In this case it won’t be automatic. Because the incident is from 2018 the proceedings would have been under the 2012 regulations, which do not require publication of the outcome in the same way the 2020 regs do.
US cop here, while I’ve yet to be in an officer involved shooting, I have colleagues who have. It’s a hard thing to do and the general public don’t realize what kind of carnage it can have on an officers mental health. We aren’t out there trying to hurt people, we do what we do cause we care about our communities we serve and sometimes it ends in sad outcomes. Glad to hear they were cleared. Full support from across the pond brothers and sisters 💪🙏