As former firearms officer, I would have quit if police officer had been convicted of Chris Kaba murder

This is my latest column, out on today's Scotsman (29th October 2024)

The one good thing to come from the Chris Kaba shooting trial was the common sense of the jury

When it was announced a police firearms officer would be tried for murder by shooting of Chris Kaba, the news made for alarming reading. As a former firearms officer myself, I was transfixed. For a murder charge to be brought was highly unusual. No officer goes on duty intending to kill, so I assumed there were special circumstances to justify such a serious charge. There were not.

The officer was found not guilty but, even so, this was a highly consequential trial which raises important issues. First, such was the outrage of serving firearms officers, that a guilty verdict would certainly have prompted a mass resignation of their voluntary firearms duties. Had I been serving, I would have done the same.

Two questions arise from this debacle. Why the charge of murder, and why was the police officer publicly identified?

Special interest groups

To prove murder, the prosecution must prove malice aforethought – the intent to kill. At the trial, there was no evidence of this whatsoever. The police did not know who the occupant or occupants of the car were, only that it had been recently used in a violent crime. Not to stop it would have been in dereliction of their duty to protect life and prevent crime.

The criteria for prosecuting all criminal cases is that there is a reasonable prospect of success and it is in the public interest. The first criterion was clearly not met and, as for the second, I suppose it depends on how you define ‘the public’.

Was it the general public or the small but shrill voices of special interest groups. From the start, because Mr Kaba was black, this case attracted the attention of race-baiters even though their claims were palpable nonsense. The police team who stopped the suspect car did not know who the driver was, let alone his racial origin.

Mr Kaba was shot because of his actions, not because he was black. I would hate to think that prosecutors were influenced by such pressure groups, but they must surely now be called upon to explain their logic, if they can.

A target on officer’s back

But if the prosecution for murder was extraordinary, the judge’s decision to publicly name the officer was outrageous. The judge must have known Mr Kaba’s criminal background and his connection with a violent crime group. Naming the officer was tantamount to putting a target on his back.

Such a perverse and dangerous decision must be explained, especially since the same judge prevented the jury hearing about Mr Kaba’s criminal background. Thankfully the presumption of anonymity in such cases has since been established but hopefully the Lord Chancellor will take the judge to task.

But amidst this inexplicable debacle, there was a glimmer of reassurance. The jury, 12 citizens, saw through it all. In just three hours, these ordinary folk applied their common sense and dismissed the case as the nonsense it had always been.

This is the important lesson from this disgraceful chapter. At a time when there is pressure to remove juries from some categories of trials, to ‘improve’ conviction rates, we should beware.

Juries are a vital, commonsense safeguard for us all. We should fight to preserve them.

My article can also be read on the Scotsman's website. Click here to read.