Police officers 'will not face action for shooting table-leg man'

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) ruling on the shooting of Harry Stanley was condemned as "bitterly disappointing" by his family's solicitor.

The IPCC report, to be announced later today, is expected to say that further action against the two officers is not justified.

But the commission is expected to strongly criticise police procedures following the death of Mr Stanley - in particular, the way officers are allowed to confer before writing up accounts of an incident.

Mr Stanley, a father of three from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and hand on September 22 1999 after a table leg he was carrying in a bag was mistaken for a sawn-off shotgun.

Murder charges against Inspector Neil Sharman and Pc Kevin Fagan have already been ruled out and an inquiry by Surrey Police recommended no disciplinary action.

Stanley family solicitor Daniel Machover said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We understand that the Surrey Police recommendations to the IPCC are going to be followed.

"That will be bitterly disappointing to Irene Stanley, particularly as we understand that the IPCC agree with us that the accounts of these officers continue to lack credibility.

"That is a very significant finding and in our view, notwithstanding the decision about charges, the question now is, is this practice of pooling recollections after an incident, does it obscure a search for the truth?

"If the answer to that is yes, and I think it must be, then this practice must end.

"No other family should have to think, immediately after the events, that there has been a cover-up because suspects in a very serious criminal investigation are allowed to put their notes together.

"No other suspect is allowed that privilege. It shouldn't happen with police officers."

Mr Machover added: "This is a bitterly disappointing outcome and I doubt there will be anything more that these police officers have to be brought to account over.

"The family is left with a sense that they haven't had justice from this process and that they want there to be real changes that come out of this.

"Immediately after an incident like this, the officers know they are going to be the subject of a serious criminal investigation.

"And when they know that, they should not be able to pool their recollections and write up their notes together.

"In this case it is so clear that the officers' identical accounts lacked credibility that it must stop now.

"At both inquests, the police officers' accounts were not believed by two separate juries.

"I think the police must accept that, in this case, this system has been discredited and should be put aside."

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he would look seriously at any recommendations.

But he warned that the individual officers did a very hard job and should not be vilified.

"I have not seen the IPCC report. Obviously I will study it when it is published and I will look seriously at any recommendations they have on procedure," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The establishment of the IPCC does provide, for the first time in this country, an independent way of examining what has happened in particular cases.

"I do not think we should ignore the fact that police officers who are in firearms units are under immense pressure, including risking their lives, and they are often in a very difficult situation.

"We have to get the procedures right, and we have to investigate properly through the IPCC, which is what we are doing, and we have to take the conclusions seriously, which we will.

"But let's not vilify the officers who are doing an often very difficult job."

A second inquest into Mr Stanley's death in October 2004 returned a verdict of unlawful killing, but the decision was quashed by the High Court last May.

Nevertheless Mr Sharman and Pc Fagan were arrested the following month as part of an investigation launched after the inquest verdict.

The Crown Prosecution Service then announced in October that it would not be bringing murder charges against the officers.

It said forensic experts had been of the opinion that "evidence relating to the fatal shot could reasonably permit interpretations consistent with the officers' belief that they were acting in self-defence".

"The forensic evidence based on the bullet holes in Mr Stanley's jacket, which might have gone some way towards showing the officers may have lied in their detailed account, is now insufficiently persuasive," the CPS statement added.

It also said there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction on charges of gross negligence, manslaughter and misconduct in a public office.