A question of restraint

What prevents police officers from killing protesters?

On the Today programme this morning, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, was defending the police handling of yesterday's student protests.

Asked about the idiotic attack by protesters on the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, he praised the "restraint" of the firearms officers who were present.

The implication appeared to be that, but for this "restraint", the protesters would have been shot dead properly. The commissioner furthermore described the restraint of his officers generally, not by reference to the officers following training, policies and procedures, but in terms which meant he could commend the officers' moral qualities.

The impression one formed, listening to Stephenson, was that it is a matter of simple discretion for his officers not to be more heavy-handed, or even lethal, in dealing with protesters. Any lapse would be understandable, and merely a moral failing of the officer.

One test of a liberal society is the point at which killing protesters becomes acceptable, at least to those with the power to do the killing.

This morning it seemed clear that, unless the commissioner misspoke, or one simply misinterpreted him, that point is now at the discretion of any police officer with a gun.

David Allen Green is a lawyer and writer. He is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and was shortlisted for the blogging section of the Orwell Prize in 2010.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

GETTY
Show Hide image

The Deep Dive podcast: Mandates and Manifestos

The New Statesman's Deep Dive podcast.

Ian Leslie and Stewart Wood return for another episode of the Deep Dive. This time they're plunging into the murky world of election promises with Catherine Haddon, resident historian at the Institute of Government. Together they explore what an electoral mandate means, what a manifesto is for, and why we can't sue the government when they fail to keep their promises.

Plus: Rant or Rave? Find out which podcasts have had our hosts on tenterhooks.

Listen to this episode of The Deep Dive now:

 

0800 7318496