This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Greater Manchester police charged over shooting of Anthony Grainger
Greater Manchester police charged over shooting of Anthony Grainger
(about 7 hours later)
A police marksman who shot dead an unarmed man will not face charges, prosecutors have announced, but his force will be prosecuted for breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act.
A police marksman who shot dead an unarmed man will not face charges, prosecutors announced on Thursday, prompting fury from the dead man's family, who said the decision showed there was "no justice in this country".
Anthony Grainger, 36, died from a single shot to the chest as he was sitting in the driver's seat of a car in Culcheth, Cheshire, on the evening of 3 March 2012.
Anthony Grainger, 36, was shot through the chest as he sat in a car in the village of Culcheth, Cheshire, on the evening of 3 March 2012.
On Thursday the Crown Prosecution Service said it would prosecute Greater Manchester police (GMP) over the death. The CPS said poor police planning meant the suspects were exposed to unnecessary risk.
The decision not to charge the officer came after the director of public prosecutions decided a jury would believe the police marksman's claim to have acted in self defence.
The CPS said the prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act would be brought against Sir Peter Fahy, in his role as GMP's chief constable. If found guilty, GMP would face a fine.
A solicitor for the Grainger family said prosecutors risked giving armed police who kill unarmed suspects immunity from criminal charges.
The incident was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which did not find any firearms or weapons in the vehicle. None were found on Grainger.
The Crown Prosecution Service said a charge would be brought against the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Sir Peter Fahy, under health and safety legislation, because poor police planning had exposed Grainger and other suspects to unnecessary danger.
The shooting followed a planned police operation to arrest a group of men suspected of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The CPS said it considered charges against the police marksman who fired the fatal shot. The officer, who was interviewed under criminal caution, has said he was acting in self-defence.
Fahy will be named in the charge because he is chief constable. He is not facing criminal allegations personally, has no need to attend court, and, if the jury convicts, he will not get a criminal record.
The CPS said it considered charges of murder, gross negligence manslaughter or misconduct in public office. But after consideration by top lawyers, including the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, the CPS decided a jury would most likely acquit the officer.
Wes Ahmed, Grainger's cousin, said: "This decision has ripped us to pieces. We thought it was a clear-cut case. When it comes to a death in custody the system protects the police. This is not justice. There is no justice in this country."
The CPS said: "Any prosecution for murder would require the CPS, amongst other elements, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the officer did not honestly believe it was necessary to use force and (b) that the force used was disproportionate in the circumstances as the officer believed them to be.
The shooting happened as Grainger was sitting in the Audi in Culcheth. The officer fired through the car's front window, and police threw a CS gas canister into the vehicle. They shot out its tyres in an operation that caused onlookers to scream in terror. No firearms were found in the car, on Grainger, nor at any address linked to him.
"In the circumstances of this case, our assessment of the evidence is that a jury would accept that the officer did believe his actions were necessary and that the level of force used in response to the threat as he perceived it to be was proportionate."
Jonathan Bridge, solicitor for the Grainger family, said if police were convicted for the health and safety breach, for which they would be fined, it would "just move money from one government department to another".
Grainger's family attacked the CPS decision, saying it meant officers who shot dead unarmed suspects were above the law.
Bridge said the Grainger case was different from other recent cases where armed police were not charged. He said that Grainger had no history of involvement with firearms nor was there anything to suggest he would have access to them.
Wes Ahmed, Grainger's cousin, told the Guardian: "This decision has ripped us to pieces. We thought it was a clear-cut case. When it comes to a death in custody the system protects the police."
If correct that is in contrast to the case of Mark Duggan, 29, whom armed police correctly believed had collected a weapon minutes before they stopped a vehicle he was travelling in during August 2011.
Ahmed described the health and safety prosecution as little more than a "slap on the wrist" and said: "No officer will go to jail for killing Anthony. It's a slap on the wrist and everybody walks away scot-free. They are immune from prosecution.
Last week an inquest jury found that Duggan was unarmed when police shot him, having thrown the gun away seconds beforehand. The killing was ruled lawful.
"I thought the officer was going to be charged because it was a clear-cut case. This is not justice. There is no justice in this country."
In the case of Azelle Rodney, 24, shot dead in Edgware, London, in 2005, an inquiry last year found he had been unlawfully killed by an armed officer. Police had had intelligence he could have access to a machine gun. Weapons were found inside a vehicle he was riding in on the way to allegedly rob a Colombian drugs gang.
Grainger died after an officer fired through the windscreen as he sat in the driver's seat, hitting him in the chest. Two other rounds from a police weapon hit the car's tyres and a CS canister was thrown into the vehicle.
The CPS has used health and safety laws before to prosecute police for the shooting of an unarmed man, while deciding not to charge officers who pulled the trigger.
Grainger was born in Salford and lived in Bolton. His occupation was given as "odd-job man" at an inquest into his death, which was opened and adjourned.
In 2007 the Met was convicted for the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, whom officers had mistaken for a suicide bomber. The force was fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 in costs.
In 2010 he was jailed for 20 months after admitting handling stolen cars.
In 2010 Grainger was a defendant in a multimillion-pound drugs trial and was acquitted of conspiracy to supply drugs but admitted handling stolen cars and was jailed for 20 months. His occupation is officially listed as "odd job man".
The first hearing in the health and safety case against GMP will be on 10 February at Westminster magistrates court.
The CPS decisions were taken after Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, reviewed the case.
In its statement, the CPS said: "Anthony Grainger, 36, was shot and killed by an officer of Greater Manchester police on 3 March 2012 during a planned operation to arrest a group of men on suspicion of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Mr Grainger was not armed when he was fatally shot. An independent investigation was then undertaken into the actions of the officers involved in the planning, approval and conduct of the operation."
Explaining the decision not to charge the armed officer, the CPS said: "Any prosecution for murder would require the CPS, amongst other elements, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the officer did not honestly believe it was necessary to use force and (b) that the force used was disproportionate in the circumstances as the officer believed them to be.
The CPS explained the charge against GMP: "It is alleged that an unnecessary exposure to risk was caused by serious deficiencies in the preparation for the police operation."
"In the circumstances of this case, our assessment of the evidence is that a jury would accept the officer did believe his actions were necessary and that the level of force used in response to the threat as he perceived it to be was proportionate."
Saunders said: "In addition to every employer's responsibility towards their employees, the law also imposes a duty to ensure that work is carried out in a way that ensures, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons outside of their employment are not exposed to risk. The chief officers of police forces are treated as employers for this purpose. It is alleged that there were serious deficiencies in the preparation for this operation that unnecessarily exposed individuals to risk."
GMP's deputy chief constable, Ian Hopkins, said the force had co-operated fully with the IPCC, the CPS and the coroner since Grainger's death.
"Our sympathies remain with Mr Grainger's family and we deeply regret the loss that they have suffered," he said in a statement.
"Mr Grainger's family, and the officers involved, have had to wait a long time for this decision to be reached and we share the frustrations over those delays. However, we understand that it was vitally important that the investigation was carried out thoroughly to establish all the facts.
"Now that a charging decision has been made regarding the force itself, it is equally important that these legal processes are allowed to take their course unimpeded in order to seek a resolution for both the family of Mr Grainger and the force."
He said GMP was waiting for the official publication of the IPCC report but, as the coroner's inquest was still open, it could not make any further comment.
The CPS has used health and safety laws before to prosecute police over the shooting of an unarmed man, while deciding not to charge the officers who pulled the trigger.
In 2007 the Met was convicted over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, who officers had mistaken for a suicide bomber. It was fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 in costs in a ruling that damaged the reputation of the then Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair.
The basis for the prosecution under health and safety laws in the Grainger case is different to that in the De Menezes case.
In the Grainger incident the prosecution will say poor planning exposed Grainger and other suspects who were the target of police suspicion to more danger than necessary. In the De Menezes case, prosecutors said no individual officer could be held responsible for the death, but that the force should have done more to protect the public from risk.
The CPS's decision not to prosecute the armed officer in the Grainger case comes after an inquest jury last week decided that Mark Duggan was lawfully killed, despite being unarmed when he came face to face with police.
Fahy, who technically faces the health and safety prosecution, must decide whether to fight the case or, after studying the evidence, plead guilty to minimise costs and damage to the force.
Fahy, who technically faces the health and safety prosecution, must decide whether to fight the case or, after studying the evidence, plead guilty to minimise costs and damage to the force.
Fahy served as deputy to Blair in the Surrey force. Blair's decision to fight the De Menezes prosecution was opposed by some of his senior team and his decision-making helped hasten his departure from office a year later.
The first hearing in the health and safety case against Greater Manchester police will be on 10 February 2014 before Westminster magistrates.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
