An Armed Response: A survey of Firearms Officers’ opinions of Post-Incident Procedures

Overview

There is limited academic research into the general thoughts and feelings of firearms officers - a unique group of police officers subject to high pressure situations. This report documents a timely survey that seeks to capture such firearm officer attitudes within the context of an IPCC consultation into police complaint management, namely proposed changes to the Post-Incident Procedure (PIP). To achieve this an online survey was designed and administered obtaining 2,035 responses, of which over half were MPS firearms staff (n=1,174, 58%).

The summary of headline findings is:

 Firearms officers are subjected to unique demands in high pressured situations. The pride they have towards being a firearm officer is evident - however, it is also clear there are more negative attitudes towards the wider command and their respective organisations which require attention.  There appears to be uncertainty regarding the relationship between firearm officers (and the command) to the public. Attention could be directed to developing this relationship, something likely to impact upon public confidence.  There is generally some acceptance to wear Body Worn Videos (BWV) and some recognition it will provide additional, more transparent evidence. There are however some concerns over how video footage will be used (by the police, IPCC and legal defence) and how officers will be portrayed - especially if footage will be an accurate representation of practical events and internal feelings/justification for action.  Officers appear to see media scrutiny as part of the job, something which may not be seen in other police roles and adds to the pressure they face. Attention to provide staff with advice or protection to such scrutiny would likely be valued by officers.  Firearms officers report high levels of support from their immediate team, although the feeling of support diminishes as higher management levels were discussed - with a large number not believing their organisation has their best interest at heart.  There appears to be uncertainty about the types and usefulness of occupational support provided. Occupational Health seems to be viewed sceptically, and whilst officers generally agree they can cope with the stressors, the majority would also like to see more support provided by Met.  Firearms officers do not appear to be fully briefed on the PIP, and the majority do not believe it to be fair or having integrity - however, MPS officers are more positive than their national colleagues.  Firearms officers are highly positive around the practice and benefits of conferring post incident. Any IPCC alterations in this area would require considerable attention to the processes of managing this change.  Officers were strongly negative towards many of the proposed PIP changes and highlighted issues such as increased stress that may result from segregation. Any resulting change to these areas of the PIP would require considerable guidance and support to oversee operational change.

1

Background

There is limited academic research into the general thoughts and feelings of firearms officers - a unique section of the police subjected to high pressure situations. Their opinions are particularly interesting in the current climate, (e.g.) with recent high profile firearm incidents (such as that of Mark Duggan)i and the potential Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)ii policy changes which may be implemented as a resultiii.

The IPCC are in the process of consultation to launch a new strategy which hopes to improve oversightiv. Part of this includes proposed changes to the Post-Incident Procedure (PIP) currently followed by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), applicable for officers/staff declared as significant witnesses. This will most often apply to incidents of death in custody and after the deployment of lethal weapons. A key aspect of the IPCC suggestion is to separate officers/staff after an incident, to prevent conferring, therefore maintaining the perceived integrity of evidence. For all medically fit officers/staff, an ‘Achieving Best Evidence’ (ABE)v style interview will also be conducted almost immediately after an incident, signifying a fundamental change to current the PIP. Although not solely an armed policing issue (as changes could affect every police officer/staff member who may be involved in a future death, serious injury or command failure); it is suggested firearms officers would have more exposure to such processes and policy - and as such their voices are of importance.

Therefore, with a desire to learn more about officers in this unique environment and to provide contextualisation behind the police response to the IPCC consultation, the Evidence and Insight team (now part of the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) - a dedicated independent in-house social research team, providing evidence based direction for improving Criminal Justice and Policing in London) was commissioned to conduct a survey to capture the voices of firearms officers. This survey is also part of a larger research project on Body Worn Videos in London.

Design and survey results

A survey was developed comprising of 18 sections including a range of themes relevant to armed policing - such as working with the public, the media and general attitudes to the PIP. Working with colleagues at the Police Firearms Officers Association, an email invite was sent out nationally. Released on Monday 10th February 2014 and kept live for 2 weeks, the survey obtained a much higher response than the typical 10% rate of online survey return, with 2,035 completed submissions (as of 13th March). Of this total over half (58% n=1,174) were from the MPS out of a potential 2,160vi (a response rate of 54%) and the remainder (42% n=861) from other police forces across the UK out of a potential 4,025vii (response rate 21%). Such a response rate is in itself perhaps an indication of the strength of feeling within firearms officers to the theme of the survey.

For MPS officers the majority of respondents were from SC&O19 Specialist Firearms Command (28%, n=324) and SO6 Diplomatic Protection (DPG) (26%, n=302)viii.

Across the board the majority of respondents were:  Male (All: 92%, n=1,873; MPS: 89%, n=1045)ix;  The rank of Police Constable (PC) (All: 80%, n=1,631; MPS: 79%, n=928)x;

2

 Experienced officers - half had been in the police service over 15 years (All: 54%, n=1101; MPS: 61%, n=713) and a third between 10 and 14 years (All: 32%, n=660; MPS: 33%, 390)xi.  In the role of an Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO) (All: 41%, n=827; MPS: 56%, n=658) or in an Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) (All: 33%, n=666; MPS: 21%, n=245)xii.

Results have been split into three main sections: attitudes to a range of policing topics (e.g. armed policing, the public, and the media); attitudes to the current Post- Incident Procedure; and attitudes to the suggested changes in PIP procedure. The overall national response and specifically MPS results will be reported throughout.

Section 1: Attitudes to… Respondents were asked a range of attitudinal questions relating to policing and being a firearms officer. Where otherwise stated, responses have been collapsed into those who strongly agree/agree and those who disagree/strongly disagree.

Armed policing There were many positives from the officers toward armed policing and being a firearms officer. The majority of respondents reported to be proud to be a firearms officer (All: 87%, n=1,761; MPS: 81%, n= 946); confident in carrying a firearm (All: 96%, n= 1,951; MPS: 95%, n=1,111); confident in their own ability (All: 98%, n=1,987; MPS: 97%, n=1,139); and agree their training adequately prepared them to do their job (All: 79%, n=1,615; MPS: 74%, n=873). To illustrate the unique position of the officers - the majority reported to sometimes fearing for their personal safety (All 71%, n=1,435; MPS: 71%, n=831), and a proportion regularly fearing for their safety when on duty (All 13%, n=273; MPS: 13%, n=156). The majority of officers agree operational planning is done effectively (All: 56%, n=1,131; MPS: 55%, n=643), although there is still a sizable group (around 44%) who are unsure or disagree with this.

However, in contrast to the above, less than half of officers agreed (All: 38%, n=767; MPS: 33%, n=322) there was a positive working environment in their command. Furthermore, only 4% (n=74; MPS: 3%, n=30) of officers agree their police service has their best interests at heart and there is little understanding from the organisation as to how this job affects your personal/home life (All: 72%, n=1,460; MPS: 70%, n=821). In addition, less than half of respondents indicated they would still join the firearms command if they were asked again (All: 46%, n=928; MPS: 44%, n=511). See Graph 1 for an overview.

3

“I am glad to be finishing my service on the Firearms unit after nearly 20 years on it. It feels like a massive weight has been lifted off me and I feel less at risk from the police organisation”

“I think senior management, government and the public need a reminder that firearms officers do this voluntarily... “

“Officers volunteer for this role and do not get paid anymore for it. We do the role because we want to use our skills to help others. But the way we are looked at and portrayed by the media and by our own command does make you question whether putting yourself and your family through all the negative points is worth it.”

Graph 1: attitudes towards armed policing 100% 98% 96% 90% 87% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 38% 30%

20%

10% 4% 10% 0% Proud to be a Confident in own Confident carrying There is a positive My police force My police force firearms officer ability a firearm working has my best understands how environment in the interests at heart this job effects firearms command your personal/home life

Firearms officers are subjected to unique demands in high pressured situations. The pride they have towards being a firearm officer is evident - however, it is also clear there are more negative attitudes towards the wider command and their respective organisations which require attention.

4

The Public It would appear officers have mixed views regarding how the public view them, with over a third not feeling publicly respected (All: 40%, n=811; MPS: 46%, n=538). Just under half of respondents show uncertainty as to whether the organisational response to incidents makes the public feel safer (agree to some extent - All: 43%, n=870; MPS: 44%, n=516) and only 10% (n=202; MPS: 12%, n=137) agree the public has confidence in how the MPS deals with post-incident events. The majority of respondents also disagree that communities understand the nature of work firearms officers undertake (All: 69%, n=1,480; MPS: 70%, n=823). See graph 2.

“Armed policing is a very difficult arena that the public in no way understand”.

“I feel proud to be a firearms officer but don't feel that my community appreciates the work done by me and my colleagues”.

“The public have the right to understand when we get it wrong and we must have the moral courage to accept this, they and we also deserve to understand when we get it right. Perhaps we need to consider public engagement to explain to the public about what we do, why do it, the statement of mission and values, the core of the National Decision Model roughly translates in layman's terms is to do what your mum and your chief constable want you to do. Tell the public, they will listen and they will understand.”

Graph 2: attitudes towards the public

100% 1% 5% 2% 14% 90% 14%

80% 40%

70% dont know 42% 69% 38% 60% disagree to 50% some extent 30% neither agree 40% or disagree

30% 35% agree to some extent 43% 20% 20% 29% 10% 10% 9% 0% I feel respected by the How the firearms The public have confidence The nature of my work is public command responds to in how the MPS deals with understood by incidents makes the public post-incident events communities feel safer

There appears to be uncertainty regarding the relationship between firearm officers (and the comm and) to the public. Attention could be directed to developing this relationship, something likely to impact upon public confidence.

5

Body Worn Videos The majority of officers agree to some extent they would be happy to wear BWVs (All: 44%, n=901; MPS: 45%, n=530), however, there is a large group who strongly disagree with their use (All: 40%, n=803; MPS: 39%, n=463). Only half of officers agree the technology will help the public to be confident in firearms officers (All: 50%, n=1,021; MPS: 51%, n=596), potentially because the majority believe it will portray officers negatively (All: 46%, n=934; MPS: 43%, n=507).

Around half of officers believe the technology will provide better evidence at court/ inquests (All: 51%, n=1,038; MPS: 52%, n=610), but fewer believed it will support their justification for use of force (All: 47%, n=964; MPS: 49%, n=577) and there are concerns footage will not provide a true representation of events, either practically (what has occurred at the scene: All: 90%, n=1,826; MPS: 89%, n=1,040; make situation seem very black and white: All: 93%, n=1,883; MPS: 93%, n=1,085); or in terms of internal feelings/justification for actions (All: 92%, n=1,862; MPS: 91%, n=1,065).

The vast majority of officers have reservations over how BWV footage will be used by police management (All: 88%, n=1,799; MPS: 89%, n=1,039), increasing further with the defence in court/at an inquest (All: 91%, n=1,848; MPS: 90%, n=1,059) and the IPCC (All: 92%, n= 1,874; MPS: 93%, n=1,089).

“A BWV has no capacity to capture the eyes ability to see so many things in the peripheral vision.”

“Body cameras do not allow the viewer to feel the stress/fear/anxiety/chemical cocktail that the officer feels therefore will not give a true representation of what occurred.”

“…In my opinion this would lead to the officers justification for use of force and what they percieved as a threat to be almost disregarded entirely in favour of what is seen in a non-stress situation on a television screen.”

There is generally some acceptance to wear Body Worn Videos (BWV) and some recognition it will provide additional, more transparent evidence. There are however some concerns over how video footage will be used (by the police, IPCC and legal defence) and how officers will be portrayed - especially if footage will be an accurate representation of practical events and internal feelings/justification for action.

Media Interestingly, the majority of respondents reported that media scrutiny was somewhat expected as part of the job (All: 81%, n=1,654; MPS: 79%, n=928), and furthermore officers agreed it influences how they do their job (All: 52%, n=1,049; MPS: 54%, n=637), causes stress (stress: All: 97%, n=1,980; MPS: 98%, n=1,145) and worry: (All: 71%, n=1,453; MPS: 70%, n=824).

6

“….I strongly feel that the media has had a big role to play in the negative perception the public has towards the use of firearms by Police forces. I feel that the British media in particular will often portray the firearms officers as the ones in the wrong and seem to portray some suspects as innocent individuals and glaze over details like the suspects being armed….. strongly feel this [lack of community appreciation] is down to a negative image of us in the news.”

“…simple factual explanations given to the press and public following any discharge of a Police firearm would have a huge positive impact. We as an organisation seem to let the press say anything with no come back or factual redress.”

Officers appear to see media scrutiny as part of the job, something which may not be seen in other police roles and adds to the pressure they face. Attention to provide staff with advice or protection to such scrutiny would likely be valued by officers.

Organisational Support It was a positive that almost all officers reported feeling supported by their team (All: 92%, n=1,875; MPS: 90%, n=1,060); and respected by colleagues (All: 78%, n=1,596; MPS: 80%, n=937). Whilst the largest proportion feel supported by their direct line management (All: 80%, n=1,635; MPS: 80%, n=937), we see that one in five (around 20%) reported not to feel this support. It was also clear feelings of support appeared to decrease as higher management levels were discussed - (e.g.) under half of officers agreed the nature of their work is understood by senior firearms managers (All: 40%, n=807; MPS: 36%, n=418). This is reduced still further outside of the command, where the majority disagreed their work is understood by senior non-firearms managers (All: 64%, n=1,298; MPS: 75%, n=877). Likewise, only 1 in 5 of all respondents feel supported by their organisation (All: 19%, n=393), something that appears to be felt more keenly amongst MPS officers, where only 12% (n=140) reported to feel such support and the majority actively disagreed to feeling supported by the organisation (63%, n=742), even broader - the majority of officers state they do not they have confidence in the IPCC (All: 74%, n=1,512; MPS: 85 %, n=994). See graph 3.

“I believe that senior officers need to respond more positively following police station. They are very quick to stay quiet whilst a media witch hunt takes place. The organisation needs to publicly support officers at an early stage rather than saying nothing.”

“I don't want to seem negative about this I am proud and have worked hard to become an SFO. I feel my management just see me as a number or resource. Senior management have little understand of what I do, what I will be required if I'm deployed and the PIP and support required after a deployment.”

7

Graph 3: organisational support

100% 92% 90%

80% 78% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 40%

30%

19% 20%

10% 5% 4% 0% I am supported by my I feel respected by my I am supported by my The nature of my w ork The nature of my w ork I feel supported by my I am confident in the team colleagues line manager is understood by senior is understood by senior police force IPCC (Independent firearms command MPS (non firearms) Complaints managers managers Commission)

Officers indicated that questions about Occupational Health (OH) support, designed in reference to MPS policy were not always applicable at a national level. In this case, the section focuses upon MPS only responses. More than a third of MPS officers (MPS: 38%, n=443) disagree the once a year OH screening questionnaire is adequate support, the majority believing the questionnaires are just a tick-box exercise (MPS: 74%, n=861).

“Our force does not complete an OHU assessment other than eyes and ears being tested”

In terms of pressure and support, we see contradictions. Whilst, almost all of officers agree they are able to cope with the pressure placed on them (All: 93%, n=1,895; MPS: 92%, n=1,078) none-the-less, the majority also stated being supported after an incident is a real concern (All: 89%, n=1,796; MPS: 88%, n=1,031) and more than half stated they would like more support to cope with the work they have to do (All: 58%, n=1,178; MPS: 56%, n=654). Indeed, although almost half agree there are sufficient procedures in place for firearms officers to talk to someone about how they feel (All: 45%, n=905; MPS: 45%, n=523); there is a substantial group who disagree (All: 28%, n=577; MPS: 26%, n=308), and almost half not feeling confident to access support without being judged (All: 43%, n=875; MPS: 46%, n=533).

“Officers should be better supported having been involved in what is likely to be the most stressful traumatic incident of their lives.” 8

Firearms officers report high levels of support from their immediate team, although the feeling of support diminishes as higher management levels were discussed - with a large number not believing their organisation has their best interest at heart.

There appears to be uncertainty about the types and usefulness of occupational support provided. Occupational Health seems to be viewed sceptically, and whilst officers generally agree they can cope with the stressors, the majority would also like to

see more support provided by Met.

Section 2: Post-Incident Procedures - Current Practice The majority of respondents reported not to have personal experienced of a Post- Incident Procedure (PIP) (All: 70%, n=1,429; MPS: 70%, n=821) and many were keen to state a lack of knowledge made it difficult to provide informed answers about the process or supplied ‘don’t know’ responses to questions around how PIP effects the presentation of evidence. This may be somewhat unexpected, as communication of the PIP within the MPS is thought to be commonplace.

“A lot of the questions have no relevance to me, as I have not gone through a PIP. I don't know how I would feel/ think/ react post incident.”

“…little understand of what I do, what I will be required if I'm deployed and the PIP and support required after a deployment.”

In terms of some of the specifics, officers generally view conferring as a good thing (All: 79%, n=1,602; MPS: 82%, n=959), with almost all believing they should be allowed to confer about practical elements of an incident (such as who was where and when) (All: 93%, n=1,891; MPS: 95%, n=1,120), something which is already common practice.

There was less, but still some agreement, to conferring over elements that are currently not encouraged, (e.g.) half of officers agree about conferring over use of force (All: 51%, n=1,039; MPS: 54%, n=628) and the majority for how they felt (All: 66%, n=1,347; MPS: 64%, n=756. However some officers did highlight the downsides of conferring.

“I have concerns that being influenced by other officer’s accounts… would cause me to doubt myself and cloud my own perception of why, at a particular moment I had a reasonable belief that the use of my firearm was the only available option to me….”

Officers believe conferring is beneficial and reported that it helps them to remember extra details they otherwise would have forgotten (All: 84%, n=1,717; MPS: 86%, n=1010) and makes them more confident in their statement (All: 75%, n=1,521; MPS: 77%, n=904). There were mixed views as to whether conferring can reduce external confidence in the integrity of a police officers notes - with the largest portion

9

disagreeing that confidence is impacted (All: 43%, n=880; MPS: 47%, n=556) and others either agreeing or unsure (neither agree or disagree - All: 27%, n=541; MPS: 27%, n=312; agree to some extent - All: 27%, n=548; MPS 23%, n=273).

“if officers no longer confer, the anomalies in the notes (i.e.) times, locations may make people doubt the accounts…”

“The police need to explain the process more clearly. There is nothing wrong with what we do now. We allow others to deliberately misinterpret and twist ‘conferring’ into a conspiracy. We need to explain why we do it.”

The majority of respondents agreed that the current PIP practice of 48hrs is about the right amount of time between an officers initial account and their formal statement (All: 69%, n=1,404; MPS: 68%, n=797), although some respondents highlighted this can differ from individual to individual.

“…I would prefer to be able to have recorded my reasonable belief that led to my use of force sooner than later”

“…after a fatal shooting a principal officer needs time to allow the emotional response to subside and rationalise. Whilst an officer may be perfectly rational and focused at the time of the incident, this is very likely to deteriorate for a period, post incident as some self reflection set in and the mind re-runs through the scenario. This emotional period is likely to cloud further judgement and not give the best response to questioning.”

In terms of the current PIP, it is notable that under half of officers believe it is fair (All: 41%, n=838), or has integrity (All: 47%, n=958) and only 39% confident in the procedure (All: 39%, n=788). MPS officers appear to have a slightly more positive opinion (fairness - agree to some extent MPS: 50%, n=586; integrity - agree to some extent - MPS: 57%, n=669 and confidence - agree to some extent - MPS: 49%, n=570). However in spite of this, only 10% of officers explicitly stated changes should be made to the current procedure (Yes - 10%, n=197; MPS: 9%, n=106).

10

Of those who thought the PIP should change, suggestions were to include other people such senior officers, IPCC members or external reps present during the PIP process, especially when conferring/note taking; making an initial statement early before submitting a more detailed statement later and having a specialist team of PIP experts to standardise the process.

“…the need for full transparency… other ways to achieve this e.g. an IPCC member/senior police officer being involved with the PIP from the early stages and taking ownership of it”

“…either recording (or witnessing by a senior or independent observer) of the process to give confidence and transparency of the process (including conferring).”

“A simplified on call METWIDE PIP team should be introduced. That way there is no confusion or delay in starting the process…. Non AFO senior officers should not play a role in this system...”

Firearms officers do not appear to be fully briefed on the PIP, and the majority do not believe it to be fair or having integrity - however, MPS officers are more positive than their national colleagues.

Firearms officers are highly positive around the practice and benefits of conferring post incident. Any IPCC alterations in this area would require considerable attention to the processes of managing this change.

Section 3: Post-Incident Procedures - Proposed Changes The majority of respondents do not have confidence in the proposed IPCC changes to the PIP (All: 82%, n=1,671; MPS: 85%, n=1,002) and over half of respondents stated if the changes were made, they would think seriously about their future in the firearms command (All: 60%, n=1,228; MPS: 67%, n=788). Moreover, officers do not believe the changes will make the public more confident in armed policing (All: 58%, n=1,172; MPS: 60%, n=704) and do not see them as either fair (All: 78%, n=1,581; MPS: 80%, n=944), or increasing integrity (All: 56%, n=1,144; MPS: 60%, n=704). See graph 4.

11

Graph 4: Post-incident procedures - proposed changes

90%

80% 82% 78% 70%

60%

58% 56% 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% I do not have confidence in The proposed changes w ill The proposed changes to The proposed changes to the proposed changes not make the public more the post incident procedure the post incident procedure confident in armed policing are not fair do not have integrity

Other concerns were highlighted in relation to the provision of evidence and additional stress:

Evidence Officers voiced strong concerns that conducting an earlier PIP interview will not help them to remember more details (All: 67%, n=1,362; MPS: 68%, n=800), instead it will make it more complicated if they remember other things/things differently (All: 76%, n=1,542; MPS: 75%, n=885). They believe segregating officers after an incident will complicate the presentation of evidence (All: 74%, n=1,506; MPS: 77%, n=906). The majority of officers state they do not think they will provide good evidence, if conferring does not take place (All: 66%, n=1,341; MPS: 67%, n=784), help them to win cases during criminal proceedings (All: 62%, n=1,264; MPS: 66%, n=771) or at inquest (All: 68%, n=1,374; MPS: 72%, n=839).

Officers reported mixed feelings about demonstrating higher integrity by having their initial PIP account and/or statement recorded on audio (agree to some extent - All: 40%, n=822; MPS: 35%, n=412; disagree to some extent - All: 36%, n=740; MPS: 41%, n=482) and further reservations about video recordings (agree to some extent - All: 28%, n=574; MPS: 23%, n=269; disagree to some extent - All: 52%, n=1,067; MPS: 58%, n=679).

12

Additional Stress Almost all officers believe that conducting PIP interviews directly after an incident will add to the pressure they face (All: 93%, n=1,900; MPS: 94%, n=1,100) and segregation will have a negative effect on how officers cope (All: 95%, n=1,926; MPS: 95%, n=1,110). Respondents perceived that segregation implies officers are not trusted to talk to one another (All: 97%, n=1,977; MPS: 97%, n=1,143); will make them feel like they are being blamed (All: 94%, n=1,915; MPS: 94%, n=1,101); and unsupported (All: 96%, n=1,952; MPS: 96%, n=1,124). The majority perceive the proposed changes do not take into consideration how officers may cope with stress (All: 87%, n=1,770; MPS: 88%, n=1,034) and that there is little understanding how firearms officers can experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in the same way as victims (All: 89%, n=1,811; MPS: 89%, n=1,048).

In general, officers believed the proposed changes will make them feel like a suspect (All: 87%, n=1,770; MPS: 89%, n=1,042); and to an extent take away their rights (All: 80%, n=1,634; MPS: 82%, n=960) and in their view of half believe it would give suspects more legal rights under PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act)xiii (55%, n=1,114; MPS: 56%, n=654). They believe all of the proposed changes will make the firearms command less attractive to new officers (All: 76%, n=1,553; MPS: 79%, n=929); but in particular the aspect of segregation will lead to less officers joining the command (All: 76%, n=1,546; MPS: 77%, n=909).

Just under half of officers agreed they would not be able to cope if they were segregated from their team post incident, (All: 41%, n=835; MPS: 41%, n=476), indicating team members are potentially a substantial part of their support systems. Regardless of access to legal advice (44%, n=892; MPS: 46%, n=537) or access to family and friends (All: 47%, n=947; MPS: 49%, n=578) the majority stated they could not cope with isolation.

“Armed officer used to be arrested after a shooting incident. This provided them with rights under PACE. The new system is a major step backwards, providing officers with NO rights.”

“Are police firearms officers suspected of routine dishonesty? If not, why are there proposals to introduce systems and procedures that are not applicable to any member of the public who is being investigated?”

“Can you imagine the response if two witnesses (possibly traumatized) were separated and required to give recorded accounts instantly. What would the defense make of this procedure…?”

Officers were strongly negative towards many of the proposed PIP changes and highlighted issues such as increased stress that may result from segregation. Any resulting change to these areas of the PIP would require considerable guidance and support to oversee operational change.

13

Protective Marking N Suitable for Publication Scheme? Y/N Y Title An Armed Response: A survey of Firearms Officers’ opinions of Post-Incident Procedures Creating Branch / Code and Operational MOPAC Evidence & Insight Command Unit/ Directorate Author(s) Lynne Grossmith & Paul Dawson Date April 2014

i http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949 ii http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/about-us iii http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/call-more-powers-independent-police-complaints-commission iv http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-launches-consultation-new-strategy-improve-oversight-police-complaints-system v http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/vulnerable-witnesses/achieving-best-evidence-criminal- proceedings.pdf vi Accurate as of January 2014 vii 2011/12 data - total nationally is 6756. In this year the MPS had 2731 (although as of Jan 2014 only 2160). The 2011/12 MPS proportion was removed from the total figure to gain an ‘other services’ amount. viii SO14 (Royalty Protection) 13%, (n=156); SO18 (Aviation Security) 14% (n=164); SC&O11 (Surveillance) 9%, (n=110); SO1 (Specialist Protection) 5%, (n=59); SOECC (formally SC&O7) (Specialist, Organised and Economic Crime) 4%, (n=47); Other 1% (n=11). ix Female (5%, n=106; MPS: 6%, n=75); Do not wish to say (3%, n=53; MPS: 4%, n=51). x Police Sergeants (PS) (All: 15%, 308; MPS: 15%, n=181); Police Inspector (Insp) (All: 5%, n= 96; MPS: 6%, n=65). xi Between 5 & 9 years (10%, n=206; MPS: 6%, n=64); Between 3 & 4 years (1%, n=29; MPS:0.3%, n=4); Between 1 & 2 years (2%, n=28; MPS: 0.2%, n=2); Less than 1 year (0.5%, n=11; MPS: 0.1%, n=1). xii Specialist Firearms Officer (11%, n=219; MPS 7%, n=83); Close Protection Officer (4%, n=89; MPS 7%, n=86); Tactical Support Team (2%, n=30; MPS: 2%, n=21); Special Escort Group (0.3%, n=6; MPS: 0.3%, n=3); Other role (10%, n=197; MPS: 7%, n=77) the majority being a firearms instructor, but also those within surveillance, in SC&O7 - Flying Squad, tactical firearms commanders and some who have recently moved roles. xiii https://www.gov.uk/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-codes-of-practice

14