|
A senior source told the Guardian: "Officers will not be able to confer about the crucial points. It's obvious that in the immediate aftermath people will talk to one another. But when they sit down to write an account, they will not be able to do so together. It's just about openness, if you have talked to a colleague about the case, that should be recorded."
The Independent Police Complaints Commission had also called for the controversial practice to change, as had an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Authority into the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead on a London tube train after being suspected of being a suicide bomber.
After the De Menezes shooting, officers wrote their statements together and declined to answer questions during interviews under criminal caution by the IPCC. One of the armed officers who shot De Menezes dead is scheduled to give evidence at the inquest today.
The senior source said the rules would have to be handled with sensitivity by senior officers: "It's not always wise to take an account straight after traumatic events as officers may still be traumatised." The ruling would probably see lawyers taking a bigger role in advising officers what to say after incidents. "It will make the whole process more legalistic as lawyers will get involved at an earlier stage. Lawyers may tell officers not to say anything, or not [to say anything] at an early stage."
Paul Davis, the Police Federation's representative for firearms officers, opposed the move. He said: "We believe conferring is the best way of protecting our members' interests and getting to the truth in a very difficult and sensitive situation.
"I think it would be seen as an open attack on the professionalism of officers in England and Wales. You are tying the hands of the police officers, leaving them vulnerable, and you could leave the post-incident investigation vulnerable."
After yesterday's decision, Acpo will rewrite its firearms manual which covers all 43 forces in England and Wales.
In the Saunders case the high court expressed concern about "a general practice under which officers who are key witnesses in an ... investigation are expressly permitted to collaborate in production of their statements: the opportunity for 'collusion' is ... institutionalised."
Acpo had been grappling with the issue for months, trying to minimise the wrath of armed officers, all of whom are volunteers.
|
