The Mark Duggan Inquest.

On August 4th 2011 (4/8/11) Mark Duggan was shot and killed by the police in Tottenham, north London following an armed traffic stop. This triggered some of the most ferocious and widespread rioting that the UK has ever experienced. Today a Coroner's Inquest released its findings into the killing. Due to the importance of the incident this Inquest was unusually held in front of a Jury. That Jury of 10 was asked to answer five specific questions;

1. In the period leading up to the shooting did the police (MPS) and Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) do everything realistically in their power to collect and act on intelligence that Duggan was taking possession of a firearm from Mr Hutchinson-Foster?

The jury found unanimously that the MPS and SOCA did not do everything in their power noting that there was insufficient intelligence and no emphasis on exploring the intelligence to find out if there was a need for Duggan to be stopped or whether other less dangerous action could be taken.

2. Once the decision to make the traffic stop had been taken was it carried out in such a way as to minimise the need for the use of lethal force?

The jury found unanimously that it was.

3. Did Duggan have a firearm with him in the vehicle prior to it being stopped?

The jury found unanimously that he did.

4. How did that firearm come to be on a patch of grass some 20 feet away from the vehicle at the time Duggan was shot?

8 jurors found that Duggan had thrown the firearm away as soon as his vehicle had come to a stop and before either he or the police officers had exited their vehicles. 1 juror found that Duggan had thrown the firearm away immediately after exiting his vehicle. 1 juror was unable to answer the question because no witness had seen Duggan throw the firearm. However this means that 9 of the 10 jurors believe that Duggan was totally unarmed when the police officers opened fire on him.

5. When Duggan was hit by the fatal shot did he have the firearm in his hand?

Again 8 of the jurors found that Duggan certainly did not have the firearm in his hands when he was hit by the final shot. 1 juror found that it was more likely then not that Duggan did not have the firearm in his hands when he was hit by the fatal shot. 1 Juror found that it was more likely then not that Duggan did have the firearm in his hands when he was hit by the fatal.

Having answered those five questions the jurors were asked to decide whether Duggan had been lawfully killed, unlawfully killed or leave an open conclusion. In order to be lawfully killed Duggan had to present what was believed to be a real and present threat to the lives and safety of those around him. With 8 of the jurors certain that Duggan was unarmed at the time he was shot and 1 believing it to be most likely that he was unarmed they seemed to have little option other then to find that Duggan was unlawfully killed.

However the question is not whether Duggan was armed and posing a threat but whether the police officers believed, mistakenly or not, that he was armed and posing a threat. All of the police officers swear blind that Duggan either had a firearm in his hand or was reaching for a firearm that was in his belt. The sole civilian witness stated that Duggan was unarmed, had his hands raised to surrender and likened to his shooting to an execution. With lots of witnesses saying one thing and only one witness saying something different it is near impossible for jury to find in favour of the minority witness over the majority.

I would though be interested in reading the transcript of the proceedings to see if the Inquest was rigorous enough in questioning the police witnesses - they are of course the ones with the most incentive to lie.

20:40 on 8/1/14 (UK date).


Edited at around 10:50 on 9/1/14 (UK date) to add;

Immediately following the announcement of the Inquest's findings the MPS' Assistant Crime Commissioner Mark Rowley gave a statement on the steps of the Court house. This did not go well as he was effectively drowned out by a crowd of supporters of the Duggan family. Since then people having been lining up to call this a public relations disaster for the police. However I think Rowley knew exactly what he was doing and what the reaction would be. His intention seemed to be to act as a lightning rod for public anger so everybody got it out of their system in that small, easy to control situation rather then allowing it to go off and fester on the streets of Tottenham.

I guess though that it is difficult for politicians and members of the media to realise that sometimes there are more important things then public relations.

That said Rowley is not helping his cause by repeating in every single interview since that the jury found that Duggan had been lawfully killed. That's because to me it seems as though the jury found that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Duggan had been unlawfully killed which is a very different thing. Perhaps the Coroner should have been more clear in their direction of the jury about the circumstances in which they can return an open conclusion.