The acquittal of Metropolitan Police firearms officer Martyn Blake, who was accused of the murder of 24-year-old Chris Kaba, an unarmed black man, has raised further questions about the use of lethal force by police.
Campaigners have vowed to continue fighting “for Chris, for justice and for real change” while Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and other police leaders have called for officers to be given greater protection against legal action after using their weapons in the line of duty.
Here are seven things to know about the Chris Kaba case.
Why were police following Chris Kaba?
The night before Mr Kaba was killed, a shooting took place in south London.
A blue Audi Q8 was understood to have been involved in the firearms incident and it, the weapon and the suspects remained at large the following day, officers were told.
On 5 September, 2022, firearms officers spotted an Audi Q8 drive past them while they were out on duty. An officer recognised the licence plate and instigated the pursuit.
What did officers know about Chris Kaba at the time of the shooting?
Mr Kaba has been described as a “core member” of one of London’s most dangerous gangs and was a named suspect in two shootings in the days before he was killed.
He had previous convictions for possession of weapons and had been in prison. He was also due to face a civil court hearing, which would have taken place 10 days after his death.
The jury was not told of Mr Kaba’s background on the grounds that it was not relevant to the case.
At the time of the shooting, police did not know who was driving the car. It was not registered to Mr Kaba and was not stolen.
What happened on the night Chris Kaba was killed?
The court was told Mr Kaba phoned his friend and told her he thought he was being followed by police, although officers were initially split over whether he knew they were pursuing him.
Police hemmed the vehicle Mr Kaba was driving in on Kirkstall Gardens, Streatham, before exiting their vehicles to confront him. Six police vehicles and a police helicopter were involved in the operation.
Mr Kaba was unarmed and had his hands visible on the steering wheel in bodycam footage from the scene.
He can be seen driving backwards and forwards trying to ram his way free.
Mr Blake rushed out of the armed response vehicle he had been a passenger in and within a few seconds, fired his weapon, shooting Mr Kaba once in the head through the car windscreen. The events, from the police stop to the shooting, unfolded in just 13 seconds.
No firearm was found on Mr Kaba or at the scene.
Why was the firearms officer prosecuted?
In line with protocols, the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba was investigated by the Independent Office for Police.
After completing its investigation, the watchdog referred the case to the CPS who then authorised the murder charge.
Under the law, firearms officers can use lethal force, however it must be reasonable in the circumstances the officer honestly believed them to be.
IOPC director Amanda Rowe said: “The decisions to criminally investigate Sergeant Blake, and then to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), followed careful consideration of a significant amount of evidence gathered during our independent investigation and by applying the relevant legal tests which govern our work.”
The IOPC will now consider whether Mr Blake should face a disciplinary hearing.
Frank Ferguson, head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, also defended the decision to prosecute Mr Blake.
Mr Ferguson said: “We recognise that firearms officers operate under enormous pressure, but it is our responsibility to put cases before a jury that meet our test for prosecution, and we are satisfied that test was met in this case.
“It is therefore right that the case was put before the jury for them to scrutinise and to decide. They have carefully considered each piece of evidence, including video and Martyn Blake’s own account. They have made up their minds in the proper way and we thank them for doing so.”
Why was Martyn Blake acquitted?
Mr Blake fought to remain anonymous, but a judge ruled he could be named but not pictured, nor his address published, following a legal challenge.
The marksman denied intending to kill Mr Kaba. He told the court he believed one of his colleagues was about to die when Mr Kaba attempted to ram his way free, so he opened fire to stop the car.
A fellow firearms officer known as DS87, who was also present at the scene, said he would have taken a shot if Mr Blake had not, and another identified by the cypher E156 said he was “fractions of a second” away from doing the same.
Prosecutors argued that Mr Blake had misjudged the risk, exaggerated the threat Mr Kaba posed to his colleagues in statements following the shooting, and had aimed at Mr Kaba’s head, all of which he denied.
However, after three-and-a-half hours of deliberation, a jury at the Old Bailey found him not guilty, clearing him of murder.
Some have argued the CPS should have moved forward with a manslaughter charge, because of the legal challenges of proving intent.
Leroy Logan, a retired Met superintendent, told Sky News: “You have to have a consistent legal system, you can’t have one protection for some elements of the public or any profession and then you don’t have that for other members of the public.”
An Met officer who wanted to remain anonymous told i most officers did not expect Mr Blake to be found guilty of murder.
How did Chris Kaba’s family react to the verdict?
Mr Kaba’s family said the verdict was a failure “for all those affected by police violence”, adding that “no family should endure the unimaginable grief we have faced”.
They said they are devastated by the not guilty verdict and have been left with the deep pain of injustice.
The family added: “Chris was stolen from us, and this decision shows his life — and many others like him – does not matter to the system. Our son deserved better.
“The acquittal of Martyn Blake isn’t just a failure for our family, but for all those affected by police violence.”
Daniel Machover and Ellie Cornish of Hickman and Rose, who represent the family, criticised the fact the IOPC had initially not treated the officers involved as suspects but as ‘significant witnesses’.
He said: “If a member of the public is directly involved in someone’s death they’re invariably treated as a suspect – why should police officers be different? Public trust depends on holding police to the same standard.
“This trial revealed that treating officers as suspects offers them better legal protection than the current ‘Post Incident Procedure,’ which applies until someone is considered a suspect. We need more trials like this, not fewer, but it requires stronger investigations and a shift in mindset at the IOPC and CPS.”
How have police officers and the Met responded?
When the CPS confirmed its decision to charge Mr Blake in September last year, more than 100 specialist armed officers opted out of firearms duties in protest.
Armed police from other forces around the country were drafted in to bolster the Met’s capabilities after its officers stood down.
The army was also put on standby to provide cover.
On Monday, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley again criticised the systems used to hold police officers who take lethal shots to account.
Sir Mark said: “No police officer is above the law, but we have been clear the system holding police to account is broken. I worry about the lack of support officers face for doing their best, but most of all I worry for the public. The more we crush the spirit of good officers, the less they can fight crime. That risks London becoming less safe.”
The Police Federation of England and Wales’s acting deputy national chair, Brian Booth, said the “ramifications of the NX121 [Mr Blake] case going to court has gone far wider than the boundary of the Metropolitan Police Service” adding that officers across the other 42 forces are “rightly asking what protection they have when doing such a dangerous, complex and demanding job”.
He added: “The Government must now urgently implement the Accountability Review recommendations so that legal safeguards can be established to allow police officers to have the confidence to do their job, serving and protecting the public.”
