This week, there was a pivotal moment in Britain’s debate over police shootings, as a jury acquitted a police officer of murdering a young Black man in south London. The case raises questions about how the police can operate effectively and with public confidence while being held accountable for any improper actions. Such deaths leave Black families grieving and officers resentful for being put on trial. The 2011 shooting of another Black man led to the biggest riots in modern English history.
The hope is that no such unrest follows the acquittal of the Metropolitan police officer Martyn Blake, who was cleared of murdering 24-year-old Chris Kaba by shooting him in the head in 2022. Jurors took just three hours to reach a unanimous verdict after three weeks of arguments at the Old Bailey. For Mr Kaba’s family, it was confirmation that “his life does not matter to the system”. The Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, argued that Mr Blake “should never have stood trial”. At least scores of officers stepped back from firearms duties last year in protest over Mr Blake being charged with murder.
The case highlights issues around police accountability. Mr Blake ended up at the Old Bailey because although he gave a short statement immediately after Mr Kaba’s death, he later refused to answer questions from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). Instead, he submitted a 24-page written statement to the police watchdog. The jury was shown a police video that appeared to contradict his account. The decision to charge him with murder was approved by Crown Prosecution Service lawyers.
While suspects have the right to remain silent, police officers cannot object to a trial if their silence is what leads them there. Mr Kaba’s lawyers also criticised the IOPC for not treating officers as suspects from the outset. In court, Mr Blake defended his actions, claiming he feared that Mr Kaba would use the car he was driving as a weapon. This was the crux of the case: the police officer knew that by firing a bullet he would kill or seriously wound Mr Kaba, but he did so in “lawful self-defence”. It is important to note that Mr Blake didn’t know who was driving, only that the car had been linked to a previous shooting. The judge rightly ruled that Mr Kaba’s prior convictions and actions – including allegedly shooting a man – were irrelevant to the trial.
The case underscores how narratives, not just facts, shape perceptions of justice. Headlines about a “hero cop” and a gangster “hitman” do not fully represent the case, only an attempt to frame the verdict and put pressure on the Home Office to make the police even less accountable than they are now. This, after a string of misconduct cases has eroded public trust in policing.
Criminal trials aim to hold individuals accountable, but don’t always reveal the full truth. They focus on whether the evidence proves guilt, not on uncovering every detail. Despite their flaws, trials are crucial for justice. A larger issue is what lessons the state will take from this case. Since 2005, the Met has shot and killed four unarmed men in non-terrorist operations. All were Black. The backdrop, as the charity Inquest noted last year, is of “deeply rooted patterns of racial disproportionality resulting in deaths after the lethal use of force”. Whether ministers view this as significant or coincidental is a political choice. Their response will show how willing they are to connect the dots and act on the evidence.
