Police liable for shooting innocent victim??

Scroll to see replies

Well clearly if he intends to shoot the defendant, misses and kills somebody else that would amount to negligence..

Hmm

Possibly, but I think you are jumping to conclusions. If a policeman shot at someone he thought was a terrorist about to blow up multiple people, and he misses and hits an innocent, that almost certainly is not negligent.

Having re-read the question, and am surprised I didn't notice this before - it can't be manslaughter because the victim did not die!!!!!

sweetgyal24

I was thinking of bringing in defences in favour for the defendant, insanity or diminished responsibility. its one or the other, but not sure which.

Unless I've badly misread the question, there is no intent and there is no dead body so DR is not relevant - DR is only a defence to murder. How about mistake or necessity depending on the facts?

Original post by sweetgyal24

deaf

I know it's a typo lol. Can I PM you the actual question please? You'll probably be able to understand my question better :smile:

Thanks for the advice though, much appreciated !! :biggrin:

I remember v. little criminal I'm afraid, best to keep it to the forum where ppl who are studying criminal can help

Reply 21

JackT180

Original post by jacketpotato

Oc course its negligent, he owes a duty of care, as he is a police officer, so owes all members of the public a duty, and breaches this duty clearly by shooting an innocent member of the public. He can't be liable for any other offence than GNM, as he doesn't intend to cause any harm to the vicitm, and its certainly not UDAM. Also the victim does die, as the OP specifies this in a later post further down the page.

Reply 22

jacketpotato

Original post by JackT180

Fair point re: the death.

I don't think it follows from the fact that there is a duty of care that said duty of care was breached. Shooting a member of the public isn't enough to demonstrate negligence without further information. What if the gun malfunctioned and fired before the officer took aim? What if the officer thought it was a terrorist and took a sensible calculated risk? Its likely that the officer was negligent but I don't think you have enough facts to say this for sure.

Reply 23

JackT180

Original post by jacketpotato

True, but with the information given by the OP, it suggests negligence, but yes, it's true that if there are other circumstances not mentioned by the OP, then it may not amount to negligence, or at least would have to be discussed :smile:

Reply 24

nick369

Original post by sweetgyal24

I didn't even consider this option! :eek:

Thank you

Are you studying Law at uni ?

yes, the V/ innocent person did eventually die, can I PM you the question if that helps? :smile:

No, I'm not studying law at uni at the moment. Don't think I'll be able to help that much, but you can PM me the question if you like.

Reply 25

sweetgyal24

Original post by nick369

If the police officer accidently shot the innocent person wouldn't it be gross negligence manslaughter (assuming the person died here)?

Yes, the victim eventually died :frown:

so gross negligence could be a possibility

However, others (Jacketpotato) said that it wouldn't be GN if the V died? :confused:

Let me go and reread his post agen.. thanks for your input anyway :smile:

Reply 26

sweetgyal24

Original post by JackT180

The Police officer would be liable for Gross Negligence Manslaughter and fits all the requirements. The defendant certainly isn't liable, not his fault that the police cant shoot, he'd only be liable for the original offence he commited, and was being pursued for.

The police were chasing him initially because they had witnessed him assaulting his girlfriend!

Reply 27

sweetgyal24

Original post by JackT180

Well clearly if he intends to shoot the defendant, misses and kills somebody else that would amount to negligence..

Can you not use transferred malice for murder then? :confused:

I thought it was like a strict liability crime? As in your not completely guilty if you get what I mean

Reply 28

JackT180

Original post by sweetgyal24

The police were chasing him initially because they had witnessed him assaulting his girlfriend!

Well then he would only be liable for Common Assault contrary to Common Law and Section 39of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 :smile:

Original post by sweetgyal24

Can you not use transferred malice for murder then? :confused:

I thought it was like a strict liability crime? As in your not completely guilty if you get what I mean

And no, im not certain but don't believe that transferred malice applies to murder, although you'll have to check this up. It will certainly not be a crime of strict liabilityy as this requires literally no mens rea at all, and he definitely had mens rea as he pulled the trigger in an attempt to apprehend the defendant. In all, just go through the requirements for GNM, and it should satisfy as long as there isn't any issues you haven't raised :smile:

Reply 29

themedicalgeek

Original post by sweetgyal24

DOE?

Thank you I will consider the investigation and all that :smile:

Duke of Edinburgh award

Reply 30

lesbionic

Hi, I'm studying criminal law on the LLB at King's, I'd be happy to help in private :smile:

Reply 31

sweetgyal24

Original post by lesbionic

Hi, I'm studying criminal law on the LLB at King's, I'd be happy to help in private :smile:

sent it to you. Sorry for the late reply. much appreciated!!

Reply 32

WelshBluebird

In reality, the copper would probably get off with a slap on the wrist on thats in.
Of course, this is coming from someone who isn't studying law, but has just observed many times when nothing has been done for various incidents.

Reply 33

JohnC2211

Original post by nick369

If the police officer accidently shot the innocent person wouldn't it be gross negligence manslaughter (assuming the person died here)?

I agree with this.

Furthermore, the AFO (Authorised Firearm Officer) would likely be relieved of his position as a firearms officer at best, or at worst, be sacked from the police service altogether.

To be authorised to carry a firearm in the Constabulary you have to pass lots of tests and even when you've passed them you have 'top up tests', so the actual scenario is highly unlikely.

But in the event that an AFO 'missed', yeah, it'd probably be negligence more than anything else.

Reply 34

dlaleye

Well i Think that there is a case for Gross negligence manslaughter and as the police fired at a man who was running away and therefore not an immediate threat, doesn't that throw away any claim for extenuating circumstances on there side (sentencing).

And no the malice would not be transferable to the defendant as it was not foreseeable that the policeman would shoot at the defendant leading to the death of another person, plus the fact that the man was partially death so colndt hear rthem telling him to stop.

*TBH the whole scenario is a bit bad, why in the world wold a policeman shoot at somebody who has just committed ASSAULT, it would be more believable if it was GBH or murder*

Reply 35

sweetgyal24

Original post by WelshBluebird

But someone innocent was killed as a result of his reckless behaviour!
ohh, sorry your excused :tongue:

Reply 36

sweetgyal24

Original post by JohnC2211

Authorised firearm officer? that's new to me. I will research it thanks :smile:

Are you doing Law at uni?

Reply 37

sweetgyal24

Original post by dlaleye

Majority are saying GNM so it must be right! :smile:

what do you mean by any claim for extenuating circumstances? :confused:

another typo- deaf :tongue:

can I PM you the whole scenario if that makes sense?
Are you doing Lat at uni? Sorry for all the ?'s :colondollar:

Reply 38

JohnC2211

Original post by sweetgyal24

Authorised firearm officer? that's new to me. I will research it thanks :smile:

Are you doing Law at uni?

I am yes, although we haven't started Criminal Law yet.

When you join the police service you start off as an ordinary (unarmed) PC, and can apply for firearms training. Upon completion of the relevant tests (medical, fitness, psychological etc) you will be granted AFO status. This means that you are authorised to carry a firearm. Depending on the situation you may be armed with a Hechler and Koch MP5 sub machine gun, a Glock 17 9mm semi automatic pistol, or recently, a G36C carbine assault rifle.

Just because you're an AFO however, it doesn't mean you always carry your gun. You have to be authorised to do so by an "appropriate authorising officer" which is usually the Chief Inspector.

The use of firearms is outlined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and the Human Rights Act.

An interesting sidenote which you may want to mention in your essay for bonus marks is that several ex-SAS soldiers have came out and said that the training that AFOs receive is poor. This can be evidenced by various cases on the subject. I can't remember the exact name of the case but there was an instance where SEVEN police officers open fired on a solicitor who was brandishing a shotgun. Only FIVE hit their target.

Hope I've helped.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 39

iamorgan

This is going to be fact-specific, but generally, it is not going to be murder. Think about the mens rea element of murder. If you could post the question, I will do my best, but it's been two years nearly since I did criminal!