The two Metropolitan firearms officers at the heart of a row threatening armed police protection in London may not look like victims, but they have some grounds for feeling ill-used. What they did was grievous: shooting dead Henry Stanley, a 46-year-old painter, decorator and father of three, who the police believed was carrying a firearm wrapped in a bag that turned out to be a table leg. That was in 1999 but, five years on, after two crown prosecution service investigations and two inquests, their fate still rests in the balance. The officers could still face criminal charges after last week's "unlawful killing" verdict by a second inquest led to their suspension.
Five years is far too long to settle such a serious issue. The officers also complain of a lack of support from senior ranks. This has a familiar ring in a force which always prefers to blame individuals rather than the system. But there are grounds for believing the system was at fault this time. Control room staff have received further training since the case, which was prompted by a member of the public calling to say an Irishman had just left a Hackney pub armed with a sawn-off shotgun. Witnesses with such serious tip-offs need close questioning.
By yesterday, more than over 120 firearms officers from SO19, the Met's 400-strong specialist firearms unit, had signed a motion indicating they would temporarily withdraw from firearms duties. Other armed officers in units which guard Westminster, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace were considering following suit. Sir John Stevens, the Scotland Yard commissioner, personally took over negotiations yesterday and agreed to meet the two suspended officers today and listen to their complaints. He signalled his sympathy for officers who had to take split-second decisions.
What was not being said yesterday, but should have been, is the need to take last week's verdict of the jury seriously. They listened to all the evidence and were faced with three options: an open verdict or lawful killing, both of which would only have needed the civil law test of "balance of probabilities". Instead they opted for the third, unlawful killing, which required the much higher test of "beyond reasonable doubt". This is serious, since it signals that they believed the officers were not telling the truth. The officers said they only fired when Mr Stanley turned and was facing them. Yet ballistic evidence shows he was shot in the side of the head. This is the first time in living memory such a verdict has been filed. The public have a right to expect the police to respect a jury's verdict too.
