No one – on either side of the barrel of a gun – is above the law

Exaggerated as fears of gun crime in London can be, it is still a relief that the minority of armed officers in the Metropolitan Police who had relinquished their “ticket” to carry a gun have mostly changed their minds.

Regrettable as it is, the capital does need a competent fast-reaction armed force to deal with armed incidents, hostage-taking, terrorism and other spasmodic but serious threats to life and limb. The offer of army support, and from other constabularies, was welcome in the circumstances, but it was never going to be sustainable, let alone optimal.

The change in mood seems to be due to firm statements made by the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, in the light of the Chris Kaba case.

Leaving the circumstances of that incident aside, Sir Mark was right to echo and amplify the legitimate concerns of his officers. When they are deployed into any situation involving guns or terrorism, they are placed in the way of danger. There is no reason to also put them into undue legal jeopardy for doing their jobs and protecting the public.

As Sir Mark notes, such questions about judgement in the use of firearms go back many years, and can obviously be extremely sensitive and portentous. The case of Jean Charles de Menezes was one such example; the 2011 shooting by officers of Mark Duggan was another, and one which led directly to the most widespread rioting since before the Second World War.

Again, leaving the details of those cases to one side, it seems clear that the guidelines for armed officers must be clear and strike the best balance possible in what will always be unpredictable and dynamic situations. It is a matter of balance.

If something like a blanket indemnity is provided, as is the case with some forces in the United States, then accountability can be eroded, overreaction becomes common, and lives are taken unnecessarily – with grim consequences for community peace, cohesion and the human right to life.

Sir Mark understands this, as do his officers: “Officers need sufficient legal protection to enable them to do their job and keep the public safe, and the confidence that it will be applied consistently and without fear or favour.”

He is also correct to argue that when officers may have acted improperly (and thereby harm confidence in the justice system) such allegations need to be investigated and settled far more quickly. A police officer, like anyone else under suspicion, should be able to secure justice sooner rather than later. When it’s a question of taking another life unlawfully, it is in the interests of everyone that things are settled fast.

The prime minister also struck the right tone, and stuck to matters of policy, when he commented that “it is important when they are using these legal powers that they do so with clarity and they have certainty about what they are doing”.

His home secretary, Suella Braverman, true to form, blundered into the story with a Twitter/X quote posting, or retweeting, on a news report of the Kaba case about not having officers placed in the dock – far too close to operational matters that must be outside the remit of a politician, and far too near to a live investigation. The decisions taken by the independent Crown Prosecution Service must be respected, especially by a home secretary.

Despite that, the signs are that the right procedures are being followed, and a sensitive approach to rules and legal clarity is being taken. The truth is that it is in the nature of this aspect of police duty that preventable tragedies will happen, and all that can be done to minimise their incidence must be undertaken.

When they do occur and where a legal line may have been crossed, then the law has to be applied, with due process and with the utmost care. No one – on either side of the barrel of a gun – is above the law.