The continuing persecution of Sgt Martyn Blake makes all of us less safe
We hear much about two tier policing these days but very little about the double jeopardy that attaches to police officers, cleared by the courts but then pursued by regulators. Or the impact this has on police effectiveness and morale. The news that Sergeant Martyn Blake is now facing a disciplinary hearing into the shooting of Chris Kaba even though he was acquitted of his murder last October is a case in point.
Sergeant Blake, an authorised firearms officer was charged after shooting dead Chris Kaba, the occupant of a car who was fatally injured in South London in September 2022. Police were pursuing the car which was linked to an earlier shooting and had attempted to stop it. Blake fired a single shot into the vehicle as it tried to ram itself through. His trial considered one key issue. Did the officer hold an honestly held belief that his life or the life of his colleagues was at immediate risk such that would have made lethal force justifiable. The prosecution said not. Blake vehemently maintained that position. The jury took just three hours to agree with him.
This wasn't good enough for the Independent Office for Police Complaints which has legal and enforcement powers to investigate police misconduct. Having originally referred the fatal shooting to the CPS to begin Sergeant Blake's ordeal, they are now pursuing 'gross misconduct' charges for the officer which could lead to his dismissal for doing his job and protecting Londoners.
The standard of proof in a criminal trial that led to his acquittal is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The IOPC standard, conversely requires only a balance of probabilities test to be applied. In data from 2022 to 2023, 80 per cent of the misconduct or gross misconduct cases it pursued resulted in a proven finding. Many people may find this statistic reassuring as it demonstrates a robust approach to recent police wrongdoing which has so badly eroded public trust in the organisation and in the Met in particular.
But Sergeant Blake's plight requires special attention. He is one of a relatively small number of specialised firearms officers who regularly find themselves in high pressure situations carrying lethal firearms and confronting determined and resourceful criminals who often carry weapons too.
Such officers require years of training and we must expect the highest standards from them. Yet they are also human beings who have an extraordinary burden of responsibility and accountability placed on them. The least they can expect from the state in return is a contract that protects them from disproportionate pursuit after a court has found them innocent. Many IOPC misconduct cases have dragged on for years, blighting officers professionally and psychologically who are later found to have no case to answer.
And there is a wider context to consider as well. The Met's commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, who immediately reinstated Sgt Blake after his acquittal has spoken eloquently about the corrosive impact on police morale such cases create.
Immediately following the decision to charge Sgt Blake, the force was plunged into a temporary crisis with authorised firearms officers threatening to hand in their weapons in protest. The UK is almost unique in western Europe as its policing model is largely unarmed despite rising levels of violent crime and an enduring terrorists threat.
The last resort is roving teams of firearms officers who can be deployed to where there is serious trouble or provide backup as was the case when the car containing Chris Kaba was stopped. The prospect of such officers concluding that they will not be properly protected by the state for doing the very role they are trained for is chilling. We have no other backstop.
Chris Kaba and Sergeant Blake were both volunteers. Kaba willingly embraced a violent criminal lifestyle that led to previous convictions and gangland associations. He died as a direct result of the decisions he made on the night he was killed.
Sergeant Blake volunteered for a role in protecting the community few of us could do, with unimaginable pressures. The court found he did not act unlawfully after an exhaustive trial.
The Home Secretary should act to change the rules of IOPC investigation to either exclude officers acquitted from further jeopardy or require the same high standard of proof as used in the criminal trial for any further proceedings. His long ordeal should now be over, not entangled in further fruitless pursuit. He has paid enough.
Professor Ian Acheson is a former senior official with the Home Office and a volunteer police officer
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Woke police chiefs whinge about underfunding when the real problem is their warped priorities
Readers of this newspaper will, throughout its long history, have been among the most ardent supporters of the police. We are traditionally pro law and order and take a dim view of rotters. It feels like that time is well and truly over. Monday's main Telegraph story, in advance of Wednesday's spending review by Rachel Reeves, which reported the concerns of senior officers that the police service is 'broken' and that underpaid and overworked personnel are leaving in droves because of funding cuts, attracted well over two thousand comments. They ranged from 'Diddums' to 'It's all your own stupid fault' with a good deal of colourful hostility in between. Honestly, you would struggle to find more derogatory remarks among the police's long-running foes at The Guardian. I noticed a similarly unsympathetic reaction a week ago when Met chief Sir Mark Rowley protested that police would have to choose which crimes to investigate if they didn't get more cash. As if the public, until now, had enjoyed a superb and rapid response to its burglaries, muggings, car, bike and phone thefts and our town centres positively thrummed with the purposeful presence of bobbies on the beat. 'Yes, Sir Mark, times must really be hard if you can only send six officers to arrest a retired police volunteer over a single tweet,' sneered one disgruntled taxpayer, perfectly capturing the mood of seething resentment. This collapse in trust is as precipitous as it is shocking. A widespread feeling has clearly taken hold that police are no longer doing the job we expect them to do, while interfering in things that are none of their damn business. The story of the London couple who were obliged last week to 'steal back' their own car after being told by police they did not know when they would be able to investigate thieves who took the Jaguar away on a flat-bed truck (but do call 101 if you find it, they were told) presents a snapshot of a frustrated public having to take the law into their own hands like a group of extremely polite, Emma Bridgewater-owning vigilantes. While many physical crimes go largely ignored, activist constabularies are doing a roaring trade in online offences. The preposterous yet sinister non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), an Orwellian development of the College of Policing back in 2014, are frequently cited by police critics, as is the clampdown on free speech which is increasingly used to suppress popular discontent about things like the annual £4.7 billion bill to keep migrants in hotels and look after them. Those of us who, for some strange reason, think it's outrageous to spend the equivalent of every single penny in tax paid by the population of Manchester on accommodating tens of thousands of young males who broke into our country, used to be called 'racists'. But I see we have got a promotion, ladies and gentlemen. According to Prevent [a counter-terrorism programme], we are no longer racists, we are 'terrorists'! If we dare to express doubts about uncontrolled immigration and lack of integration, that is. That's the same Prevent which failed to prevent Axel Rudakubana slaughtering a dance class of little girls. And which, according to a 2023 report by Sir William Shawcross, concentrates too much on the largely mythical 'far Right' and not enough on Islamist terror. The College of Policing, I am reliably informed, encourages the same delusional appeasement of the group which poses by far the biggest threat to our national security. The criminalising of the white indigenous population, running in parallel to the woke appeasement of actual criminals, goes some way to explaining this new cordial loathing of the police, I think. Unbelievably, over 60 of our fellow citizens are slapped with an NCHI every single day for 'hateful' thoughts or conduct, many of them Monty Pythonesque in their absurdity. While senior police moan about Home Secretary Yvette Cooper not winning them a big enough payout in the spending review, there seem to be adequate funds to arrest and stigmatise law-abiding people. Only this week, I got a very worried email from a reader, Carolyn, who had complained to the police about a man who has been camping for several weeks in the park where her children play. The surrounding area stinks of urine and faeces and there are scattered remnants of drug use. When Carolyn and other mums walk past they have seen the man put his hand down his trousers to play with himself. The camper's appearance suggested to her that he was an African migrant. 'Using the term 'migrant' therefore did not strike me as anything other than a fair assumption,' says Carolyn. Uh-oh. Obviously, in the bonkers world of PC policing it will now be the anxious lady who complained about a threat to her community who is warned about causing trouble. 'It would seem that any offence caused to me is secondary to the offence of Hate Crime,' Carolyn says. Correct. An officer emailed Carolyn to say that police did not have the powers to remove the tent from the park. 'With regard to the hand down the trousers,' he said, 'Many people from all different backgrounds do this as a cultural/social trend and have done for a while, we often see members of the public doing this all around the city. We will speak with him about this though and advise him of the perception this could cause. I also suggest you reframe (sic) from referring to him as a 'migrant' and making comments about 'Are we paying him to take the proverbial out of us all?'… These can be seen as derogative (sic) terms and possibly a hate crime, especially when you probably know nothing about him.' If you seek a perfect illustration of why the police service is 'broken' and officers are deserting in droves, look no further than this jaw-dropping inversion of good and bad guys. Intimidating man from alien culture seemingly exposing himself in public and peeing, crapping and doing drugs where your kids play? Completely fine, culturally appropriate, nothing to be done about it. Englishwoman suggests the man is a 'migrant' who is taking advantage of our absurdly generous system? Oh dear, oh dear – your hurty words will be taken down, Madam, and used in evidence against you. Now, it's a fair bet that many of the public-spirited young people who aspire to become police officers still think it is Carolyn's side they should be on. A rookie error, I'm afraid. 'Recruits who join the force don't realise the police are so captured,' a senior source tells me. Police retention has been a problem for a long time. It's got much worse since the higher echelons subscribed to the anti-white Critical Race Theory and adopted a witless, Leftist ideology that would have been abhorrent to their predecessors. The number of resignations in the police started to exceed the number of retirements nationally around 2023. What this means in practice, as I was told after Essex Police came to my own door on Remembrance Sunday, is that many officers now lack the experience and maturity to make common-sense decisions and bin spurious allegations of racial hatred that flatter the identity-politics obsessions of their superiors. 'It's not uncommon for uniform shifts to be about 50 per cent probationers, and they might be running with an acting sergeant barely out of his probationary period (two years) in some cases,' warns my source. The Conservatives' decision, in 2020, to lower the application age to 17 (to join at 18) as part of their training means that a lot of young people without much life experience, who don't know what they're letting themselves in for, find policing a nasty shock to the system. Once they're in, probationers have to cope with complicated, badly-designed computer systems that add hours to already heavy workloads. They have very little time to conduct inquiries and pick up more and more stressful cases, meanwhile having to deal with the aggressive, ever-more-volubly-entitled, human-rights-aware dregs of our society. After all that, if you can still muster the courage to be a first-class constable who fiercely defends the public against wrong 'uns but swears a bit and leaves violent offenders feeling they weren't treated with enough dignity then expect your Pontius Pilate of a chief constable to throw you under the Hurty Feelings bus. That is exactly what happened to Lorne Castle, a Dorset officer who has twice won a national bravery award, including one for rescuing an elderly woman from a swollen river in 2023. The 46-year-old father of three was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct after bodycam footage captured him trying to arrest a teenager who was believed to have assaulted an elderly man (the boy, who later turned out to be carrying a knife). If you watch the footage, you can experience the frightening, febrile atmosphere in which Lorne Castle was trying to carry out his thankless task. He shouted and swore, telling the lad: 'Stop resisting or I'm going to smash you.' A veteran officer tells me that 'it looked like a good arrest'. But a panel found PC Castle did not treat the teenager with 'courtesy' or 'respect', and Dorset Police said 'his shouting, swearing, finger pointing, taking hold of the boy's face and throat and suggested use of leg restraints was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate'. The force said no further action was taken against the teenager – of course it wasn't! – but he was issued with an out of court disposal for possessing the knife. I ask you, why would anybody risk phone seizures, suspensions and months of stress over complaints that usually turn out to be baseless but which see them treated like criminals? While clueless top brass in their woke ivory towers put saving their career before protecting their officers. In my book, a man of the calibre of Lorne Castle is worth more to the people of this country than every chief constable put together. So let us hear no more whingeing about underfunding leading to reduced services and driving officers away. Blame a warped sense of priorities promoted by activist police chiefs, a shameful betrayal of the British bobby and the demonisation of ordinary people for expressing legitimate fears. If the police have lost the support of Telegraph readers, then they are lost indeed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Missing woman killed by ex-lover at work and wheeled away in bin, court told
A missing woman who was found dead at a rural spot in Hampshire was allegedly killed by a work colleague and wheeled out of an office block in a wheelie bin, a court has heard. Cleaner Yajaira Castro Mendez, 46, had allegedly previously been in a relationship with married Juan Francisco Toledo, who is accused of her murder. She was reported missing to the Metropolitan Police on May 31, having left her home in Ilford, east London, on the morning of May 29. Following a police search, her body was found in the Bolderwood area of Hampshire on Saturday. At a hearing on Tuesday, prosecutor Caroline Carberry KC alleged that Toledo had killed the Colombian national on the evening of May 29 at an office where they were working in central London's legal district. She told the court: 'The defendant was Ms Mendez's work colleague. They were both cleaning staff at an office building on Grays Inn Road and they had been in recent history in a relationship and on the day of her death they were both at work.' Ms Mendez arrived for work at 5pm and was fatally injured inside the office block, it was alleged. Mr Carberry claimed that just after 8.30pm, her body was removed from the office in a wheelie bin. The defendant allegedly then placed the body in his car and drove to Hampshire where the body was dumped. Ms Mendez's former flatmate had raised the alarm after she failed to move into new accommodation, the court was told. A post-mortem examination to determine the cause of her death was ongoing in Winchester. Venezuelan national Toledo, 51, of Crystal Palace, south London, was arrested on June 4 and subsequently charged with murder. On Tuesday, the defendant appeared at the Old Bailey before Judge Mark Lucraft KC for a preliminary hearing. A plea hearing was set for September 1 with a provisional trial from April 20 2026. The defendant, who was assisted by a Spanish interpreter, was remanded into custody. Ms Mendez's disappearance was initially treated as a missing person investigation led by local officers but the investigation was transferred to the Met's Specialist Crime Command on June 5, after a range of extensive further inquiries suggested she had come to harm.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni's Lawsuit Being Tossed Out Is A Win For Survivors
Note: This post is an Op-Ed and shares the author's personal views. I fucking told you so: Justin Baldoni's $400-million countersuit against Blake Lively was tossed out by a judge. Last December, Blake filed a California Civil Rights Department complaint against her It Ends with Us costar and director, in which she alleged sexual harassment and a subsequent retaliatory media campaign (she would then go on to sue Justin). Justin denied the claims and filed a countersuit of his own, alleging defamation and extortion, among other things. Related: 21 Times Celebrities Revealed Wildly Juicy, Shady, Or Even Disturbing Things In Interviews Earlier today, a judge ruled that the countersuit against Blake, as well as Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane, Vision PR, and the New York Times Company had been dismissed. The Wayfarer parties can still amend their complaint for "breach of implied covenant and tortious interference with contract." But the important part that I'd like to highlight is the emphasis that the allegations Blake made in her CRD complaint were privileged speech. To highlight one section from the judge: "The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged a defamation claim as to any part of the purported conspiracy. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that any false statements were made to the Times other than the statements in Lively's CRD complaint, which were privileged under California law. There also is no allegation that the distribution of the CRD complaint was made by anyone other than Lively or, more particularly, with the involvement or agreement of Sloane or Reynolds. The Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Sloane or Reynolds individually did any more than repeat Lively's version of events, which they had no reason to doubt. And the Wayfarer Parties have not adequately alleged that Lively should be held responsible for Sloane or Reynolds' statements. Their allegations of a conspiracy between the parties are conclusory." In non-legal-speak terms, California has a rule that essentially means you can't be sued for defamation if you make a serious allegation of sexual harassment. It's designed to prohibit a tactic that can be used to silence survivors who do speak out by bleeding them dry via the courts. Related: Here Are 16 Actors Who Saved Their Skin By Turning Down Roles In Movies That People Notoriously Hated Nineteen women's organizations already expressed concern over Baldoni's lawsuit because of what it could mean for survivors. Child USA worried that allowing Baldoni's lawsuit to continue would effectively have grave complications for California's civil code and "would force survivors into the untenable position of having to choose between remaining silent or facing emotional, reputational, and financial devastation through protracted, abusive litigation." The Child USA amicus brief continues, "It would also send a dangerous message to other survivors contemplating disclosure — that speaking out may carry intolerable risks — and it would embolden perpetrators and complicit institutions that depend on secrecy to perpetuate cycles of abuse." This is what I have been harping on about since news of the lawsuits first emerged. This isn't just an annoying celebrity trial. If Blake Lively, a rich white lady with celebrity cache, can face a multimillion retaliatory defamation lawsuit, where the fuck does that put the rest of us who might want to speak out about sexual harassment? We need allegations of sexual harassment without malice to be considered privileged speech, which isn't the case across the country. The suit against the New York Times being dropped is also good news for the media's ability to report on alleged sexual harassment cases. Smaller publications sounded the alarm from the get-go. To a certain extent, I do worry that the damage has already been done. Most people I speak to voice confusion about what to me is a fairly simple sexual harassment and retaliation case, citing the sheer abundance of media flooding our feeds. Will all the tabloids and TikTokers that called Blake a bitch in a million different ways because she made an allegation of sexual harassment finally look at themselves in the mirror? Will my comments finally not be full of people who claim they know more about this case and its implications for women than a domestic violence shelter? (For the love of god, "Believe All Women" is not the slogan.) Or perhaps the slop machine will keep churning until the trial, reminding us that we are in an age of conspiracy that will continue to assert that survivors' stories are really important — well, unless I don't like you. Nothing says, "I champion survivors' stories" more than spending most of your time bashing a woman online! Also in Celebrity: Chrissy Teigen Posted The Results Of Her Hairline Lowering Surgery, And Ouch Also in Celebrity: 18 Celebrities Who Called Out Other Celebs On Social Media For Bad, Problematic, Or Just Plain Mean Behavior Also in Celebrity: 21 Incredible Photos Of Hollywood Legends Back In The Day That I Guarantee You've Never, Ever Seen Before
