Source · IOPC Learning Case

Woman carrying a knife shot by armed officers – Merseyside Police, July 2020

Merseyside Police Ref: 2020/139365 Recommended 29 Jul 2021 Response due 23 Sep 2021

Death and serious injury Use of force and armed policing

Case background

Text published by the IOPC.

On 9 July 2020, Merseyside Police received reports of a woman walking down the street in possession of a knife. A witness had reported the woman appeared to be throwing street furniture over. Another witness stated the woman continued to walk with purpose while holding the knife.

The incident log was passed to the Force Incident Manager (FIM), who responded that in the first instance, it was appropriate for officers wearing body armour and using correct personal protective equipment including a Taser, to attend and conduct an assessment. Two authorised firearms officers stated they heard radio transmissions about the deployment and while they had not specifically been deployed, they agreed to support their colleagues as they too carried a Taser.

The authorised firearms officers attended and informed the woman that they were armed police. They shouted instructions to the woman to drop the weapon. One firearms officer drew their Taser. As the woman came towards the officers with the knife in her hand, the other firearms officer drew their pistol and shot the woman. Both officers administered first aid and the woman was taken by ambulance to hospital.

We attended the scene and conducted a detailed examination. We obtained witness statements from police officers and members of the public. We analysed CCTV footage and police officers’ body-worn video footage, along with downloads from Tasers, radio and telephone transmissions and experts’ reports. We compared this evidence to relevant legislation and policing policies.

Our investigation concluded in March 2021. We waited for all proceedings and processes to be complete before publishing our findings.

During the investigation there was no indication that any police officer may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings or committed a criminal offence.

We shared individual learning for the attending firearms officers. We advised that it would have been beneficial to have made the FIM aware of their intention to respond to the incident. This would have enabled the FIM to factor this into their decision-making and provide appropriate instructions and direction. We did not consider this to be a formal performance matter, but we suggested this learning could be dealt with through a reflective conversation for both officers with their supervision.

We carefully considered whether there were any organisational learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We issued two organisational learning recommendations under Paragraph 28A of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Recommendations and responses

2 indexed

Recommendation 1

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Merseyside Police

Linked bodies: Merseyside Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Merseyside Police should remind their officers and staff that immediately after a firearms incident has occurred, the Post Incident Procedure (PIP) process begins, and during the PIP it is important that the identities of Key Police Witnesses (KPWs) are protected. Pseudonyms for the officers involved in a firearms incident should be used as soon as the PIP process has commenced, including addressing the officers over radio communications or whilst at the scene, which may be being recorded on police worn body Body Worn Cameras or other recording devices used by members of the public.

This is as a result of the IOPC becoming aware that whilst reviewing the material for the investigation, following the incident, one of the firearm officer's first name was used over the radio, and at the scene. Whilst the firearms officers themselves were very careful in protecting their identities, other officers may need to be reminded of this requirement.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

The recommendation is noted and action has been taken in order to mitigate a reoccurrence.

Individual learning has been provided to the member of staff who used the first name of the officer involved.

Organisational learning has also been addressed in that the PIP process has been reinforced across key departments including the Force Control Room, Force Incident Managers and PIM’s.

This will be extended to inputs on Leadership Courses delivered in force.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 2

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Merseyside Police

Linked bodies: Merseyside Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Merseyside Police reviews the settings on the body worn video (BWV) cameras used by armed officers and considers whether the pre-record functionality, as used in some other forces, should be switched on. This follows an investigation into a police shooting where, owing to the time taken for body worn cameras to power up once they were switched on, the shooting was not captured on the BWV of either of the officers. During the investigation we were told that there is an automated shutdown if the camera has been idle for 2 minutes and it would then take seven seconds from the record switch being slid down to the recording starting. The cameras have a function that allows the camera to record on a 30 second constant loop. This function allows the time immediately prior to the record switch being slid down to be retained. This functionality is currently switched off for cameras used by Merseyside Police, due to the impact this function can have on battery life. it would however, be very useful for officers deploying to a fast moving situation. BWV footage not only assists any subsequent investigation but provides transparency and can be beneficial for public confidence.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

The Body Warn Cameras that were in force at the time of the incident and are currently in force and used by Merseyside Police have capability to pre-record on a 30 second loop. However, a decision was made that this is not ‘switched on as a setting’ due to the impact on battery life.

As a result of this incident and the recommendations, the following 2 options have been considered;

1) To switch it on to this setting and ensure staff are appropriately briefed regarding this.

2) Don’t switch it on and continue with current policy due to the issue with battery life.

It has been agreed by Chief Officers that the first option will be progressed, and the setting will be changed to allow the pre record of 30 seconds as recommended, however, the battery life issue remains.

There are some practical and procedural issues that have prevented this happening immediately.

The force has a large piece of ongoing work around IT / capability, with a new phase of upgraded Body Warn Cameras coming in.

Therefore, the constant pre recording loop of 30 seconds will be a feature of the new BWC devices that are due to be rolled out in September 2020. There will be communications to officers and staff prior to the issue of the new BWC / kit.

This will be reflected in the review and minor rewrite of the BWV policy.

It should also be noted that the learning and recommendations from this incident have been discussed at the force Continuous Improvement Board chaired by the Deputy Chief Constable.

Check the original case on the IOPC website