Monthly Archive for June, 2006

Yesterday, the brothers at the centre of the Forest Gate terror raid came into public view, for the first time, by giving a press conference on their ordeal. There is wide media coverage but perhaps the most moving are the video reports. The BBC has some clips and a write-up of the press conference, with a more detailed report in the latest edition of Newsnight. True to form, the most extensive and incisive reporting is from Channel 4 News with no less than three lengthy special reports on the story.

You cannot help but feel some sympathy towards the family, especially the gentleman who was shot in the chest – that’s an area where a single shot is, more often than not, fatal. Their version of events sharply brings into focus concerns that need addressing in a way that was clearly not obvious to many early observers, such as Tim Roll-Pickering’s semi-dismissive blog on the matter.

1. How is intelligence verified before such operations? I’m sure we can all appreciate that we need the police to protect us and that some times they will have to act pre-emptively, on uncertain evidence, to avoid a greater tragedy. It is a fact of life that an overall risk assessment is the multiplication of two factors: the nature of the potential risk and the probability of it being true. Obviously when the potential risk is very high (e.g. chemical weapons factory about to unleash terror on the tube) it doesn’t require much probability of it to be true to have to be taken seriously. But there most be some attempt at credible verification. Otherwise, the effectiveness of our security services is undermined by both genuine mistakes and devious manipulations leading to a breakdown in community confidence. There could be any number of reasons why an innocent person is falsely accused by a “source”. Requiring some verification of evidence is a basic principle that separates a liberal democracy from a police state.
2. Why was police behaviour so unprofessional? I’d like to make clear that I’m not complaining about it being heavy-handed (though it may have been). I fully understand that if a major threat perceived it is sensible for the police to use overwhelming force – thereby making it clear to the target(s) that resistance is futile (sic) so as to minimise the chances of a gun battle or some other, more serious, confrontation. However, once you’ve shot someone in the chest there is no need to keep kicking them. Once your targets are detained there is no need to continue maltreating them or terrorising their elderly parents. And as police officers you should announce yourself immediately, particularly when you are busting into a home in face masks (not usually recognisable police uniform) whilst the occupants are asleep. And unless there is immediate imminent danger there should be a warning given before any gun shot.
3. Will the opportunity be taken to undertake a practical assessment of the various new anti-terrorism laws introduced by this government? Tony Blair argued that civil liberties needed to be curtailed in order to protect our security. It would be a good time to take stock and see whether they have actually helped our security at all. Tom Paine, over at the Last Ditch, has written an interesting, speculative analysis. You might argue that it is unfair to focus on this case where, quite clearly, the raid went wrong. But I challenge anyone to find an example of a single case that has resulted in a firm criminal conviction where any of the anti-terror laws passed since 9/11 have made one iota of difference.
4. Will the investigation be credible at actually answering these questions? The IPCC are widely perceived as having whitewashed the Babar Ahmed case (though that is unfortunately muddled by him now being held under a US Extradition Warrant). Their handling of the Jean Charles de Menezes case does not appear promising. Do they actually have the teeth to deal with serious unprofessional conduct by police officers? Are they capable of shedding any light on the intelligence questions? And who is responsible for making sure that what we were told was a “necessary” erosion of civil liberties is, indeed, necessary?

Obviously we need to see what the IPCC actually come up with. Nevertheless it’s important that they come up with something substantive, and in good time. Otherwise it is likely that we simply won’t learn the lessons of this case in time.