In August 2011, Mark Duggan was shot dead by armed police officers in Tottenham, London, which sparked massive civil unrest across not just the capital but in cities across the country. It was a demonstration of just how effective we as a population can be at staging widespread chaos, although, you only have to look back at that fateful week to realise that by the time the looting, vandalism and general hooliganism had reached Manchester, people could barely remember why they were doing it. They were not doing it in a move of anti-establishment sentiment towards the death of Mr Duggan - rather, they were doing it because idiots had hijacked the mood and just wanted to cause destruction for personal gain.
This inquest has been called the "Inquest Touching upon the Death of Mark Duggan", but aside from the obvious purpose, it also serves another.
It is the Trial of V53.
Of course, to some - namely, the friends and family of Mark Duggan and their supporters - this won't make a blind bit of difference, but to me, it does. Our criminal justice system is designed in a way that ultimately puts very little strain on the guilty consciences of jury members, by allowing them the displeasure of declaring somebody guilty only if they are beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is just so.
V53, the alias of the police officer that shot and killed Duggan, is the defendant, and the jury in this inquest were not just making a declaration of the inadequacies of the IPCC but also the innocence of a man: a police officer who was trying to do his job. I would not dare defend murder, in the same way that I find capital punishment abominable. Yet the mind of a police officer carrying a lethal weapon is perhaps comparable to that of a soldier on patrol: If I am in a situation where I believe I am confronting a hostile, who could do harm to civilians, then I have but one choice. Shoot first.
I cannot imagine what must go through somebody's mind in the moments prior to the point where they decide it is acceptable to open fire.
"It's like a freeze-frame moment, the only thing I was focusing on is the gun. I'm hoping he's going to drop it. The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He's raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body. [Duggan has crossed] a line in the sand. I'm aiming for the central body mass because I'm looking to shoot to stop. My focus is glued on the gun."
The fact that V53 shot to kill Duggan is indisputable, but was it a lawful killing? The question itself sounds somewhat absurd, but let's take this from the point of view of a trial. A jury is always instructed by a judge to only determine guilt where they are beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. That determination simply cannot be made in this situation. Even in the final report, the two jurors that opted to go against their eight fellows put "open conclusion" - this is not them deciding that the verdict of the others is fundamentally wrong, rather, it comes across as more of an expression of their neutrality on the matter. As far as a trial goes, this is a unanimous verdict of "not guilty".
Also, as far as criminal justice goes, one must prove intent. So let's try and unravel what most people are bemused about, like for example Ken Hinds, a Tottenham-based community activist:
"It doesn't make sense. Since when can a person not have a gun on him and be shot dead and everything still be lawful? It fathoms belief."
Well, because the question that the jury was asked was: "When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand", not: "When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did V53 believe he had the gun in his hand." If it was the latter, then certainly, the jury may have swung the other way, but it would still be the same conclusion.
It must be difficult for the Duggan family and their supporters to hear this decision, and I do think that it was a shame that Mark lost his life that day, irregardless of whether he was a gang member or not. That question, it seems, is still open to inquiry. The shadow that has fallen over the Metropolitan Police in the last two years as a result of this incident has usurped public confidence, despite all the good that that organisation has achieved throughout its history. There are times when carefulness is a trait the Met cannot afford to have, for what if Duggan had been holding a gun, and shot and killed a nearby civilian before V53 or one of his colleagues had opened fire, only for us to hear two years later that the police officer in question had been one hundred percent certain Duggan had been holding a gun, at least five seconds before Mark fired his fatal shot?
Life is precious. Let's not forget that that is the primary reason the Metropolitan Police exists, however much this inquest has marred its reputation. So, in the name of balance:
"On any given day highly trained Metropolitan Police firearms officers
can and do face life threatening situations in which they have to make
instant judgements under incredible pressure. Yet in the last four years, having responded thousands of times, they have discharged their weapons on just six occasions."
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
R.I.P. Mark Duggan
15th September 1981 - 4th August 2011
