Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to just two amendments, Amendments 393B and 394. Amendment 393B is the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has introduced about anonymity. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. However, I shared with him a few days ago that I have some sympathy with the general position. Police officers should be accountable and one of the main ways in which to be accountable is to be identifiable, which is why they wear numbers and now wear their names. That is important. I therefore hesitate before I argue for anonymity. I am not saying that it is a black-and-white question. However, on balance, I agree with the Government’s proposal, which is to provide anonymity for firearms officers. The assumption is changed from the present: it is that there will be anonymity unless the judge decides there will not be. That is the complete reverse of the situation today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, prefers it as it is today, but would put it in statute rather than common law.

I am going to say more on Amendment 394 and the group of special people we rely on. It is important because, in the case we have heard about of Sergeant Blake and Chris Kaba, the man that he shot, there was clear information before the court that Mr Kaba was a member of an organised crime group. In fact, he was wanted for two firearms offences, so there was reasonable suspicion that he and others who were linked to him had firearms access. That will not always be the case. Despite that, the judge in the case decided to lift the anonymity that had been possible. I met Sergeant Blake a few months ago. The effect on his life and his family was significant. When someone has been named, it cannot be retracted, which is why it is so important to get it right at the beginning. That is why I prefer the Government’s position. It could be argued out but, once argued in, everybody is named and consequences flow from that. Sergeant Blake was incredibly understanding of what had happened. He was not overly critical of anyone at all. We as Parliament have to consider him as one example, but there have been others. So, I prefer the Government’s position and I think it is defensible.

Finally, I made a mistake when I was speaking about this in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, corrected me. He was quite right. I said that it was a small case. It was not about being a small issue but about a small number of people. That is the point I misapplied. I realise it is an important issue. It is also important that these officers get supported. This protection, which can be argued out, is more important than the general principle on this occasion. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that other officers have come under threat who do not carry firearms. They can also apply for anonymity. However, if you are shooting someone dead, it raises the threat and the risk level and I prefer the Government’s calculation. So, I support the Government and not the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

Amendment 394 is about trying to get a higher bar before officers are prosecuted. Not too many officers have been prosecuted over the years, and everyone who has been charged has been found not guilty. Some lawyers have said, “Therefore, the system works, why do you worry?” The trouble is that it sometimes takes three to five years for that outcome to arrive, during which time the officers and their families are under incredible pressure. So it matters who gets charged and we have to consider this special group of people. Out of the 145,000 police officers, probably about 3,500 can carry a firearm. They deploy to around 17,000 incidents a year. That was in 2025 in England and Wales. They actually discharged their weapon in between five and 10 operations. They hit fewer people and not everyone who was hit died. My broad point is that they are not a trigger-happy group. There is no evidence that they regularly go out and shoot people. When it happens, it is a serious issue, and of course there should be some accountability. But we rely on them as volunteers. They do not get paid more, and if they ever change their mind—which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—we have no way to force them to do it. You cannot order an officer to carry a firearm in our present regime. We are not America, where it is a condition of service. So we rely on them an awful lot and we prey on their good will quite a lot, too.

I do not want to address the legal issue in terms of these officers, but I want to bring our attention to the policy involved. We all have to bear in mind that there are probably three broad groups of firearms operations. Something happens in front of an officer or they get deployed quickly; it is a planned operation, they are going to arrest somebody in their home; or it is a crime in progress. It all comes down to the same thing. In that second in which you have to make a decision, you remain a human being. You have to decide whether you are going to shoot or not. On the whole, the evidence shows that they get it right. Should they kill someone or hurt them seriously, the whole system, the whole panoply of the state, descends on them. “Why did you do that?” That is not the problem for me.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, raised the issue of other professions. I do not know how many surgeons there are in the Chamber, but when a surgeon makes a mistake and slashes an artery, the whole world does not descend and say, “Why did you do that?” But it does when a firearms officer shoots. I realise there is some distinction, but the outcome is the same. The firearms officer is going to come under severe scrutiny during that period. We have to consider that they remain a human being who did their best that day. They did not go to work to try to kill someone. They went to work to try to do the job that we had asked them to do on our behalf. In an unarmed society with an unarmed police force, I believe that they are a special group.

As I come towards the end of my speech, I should say that I have met most of the officers who, over the past few years, have been charged. One is called Anthony Long. He was under inquiry for 11 years before he was cleared by a Crown Court jury. Each officer I have met who has been in this position has shown great humility. They are the sort of people you would want to give a gun to. It is not about just whether they can shoot straight; it is about the judgment they apply at that time. You want sensible, mature people.

Despite the fact that all these people had been under inquiry for so long, they were incredibly understanding of why they were in that position. They understood that there had to be an inquiry, and they were very understanding of all the different processes. I think that this group of people deserves our honour as well as their own. At the moment, I am afraid, the system—not individuals—is treating them badly. Somebody has to speak up for them, which is why, for me, these amendments have so much power. I realise that there are big legal issues that must be considered—no one is immune to that—but my passion has been to try to support these people in what is, I think, a very difficult job. There is evidence that they are doing it properly; over the past 40 years, there has been no evidence of them doing it badly. There have been no convictions of an officer.

My final point is that it seems as though, on the route to getting into a court, everybody makes the judgment that this is a criminal charge. There is the investigation, which the police sometimes did; now, it is the IOPC. The CPS makes a decision, then it is put before a jury. To me, that is where some common sense gets applied. The benefit of a jury is that we have the judgment of our peers. When they apply their judgment, they conclude that this group of officers is generally doing things right. I wonder why the system cannot do more for firearms officers to encourage them to carry on doing this and taking these very difficult decisions on our behalf without having, in that second, to worry about the consequences over the next few years. We cannot sustain that, and I do not think that they should. That is my reason for arguing for these two amendments.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 403 in this group is in my name.

The group that we are talking about raises the issue whether authorised firearms officers deserve any special protection if they are, or may be, prosecuted for their conduct or if they are convicted. Some would say that they are not so deserving, because it would not be giving equal treatment to all. Others, me included, believe that they most certainly need some additional protection, whether that is a presumption of anonymity, a higher threshold before a prosecution can be brought, a lesser penalty if they are convicted, or a combination of all three.

These are among the bravest people in society. They volunteer for the job so as to protect the public, even though it means exposing themselves to a high risk of death or injury. They are motivated by the highest ideals and deserve special consideration because of it. They are emphatically not in the same position as ordinary members of the public who injure or kill others with a firearm, so I support the statutory presumption of anonymity, which the Government commendably proposed. I also oppose Amendment 393B, which would impose conditions before there can be anonymity.

In fact, I do not think that there is a huge difference between the Government’s Clause 168 and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—whatever number it is. In essence, we are talking about what the default position should be and whether that can be rebutted in the interests of justice, one or either way. The Government have come down in favour of a presumption of anonymity, which is where I come down as well, but I do not think that there is a huge gap.

For me, it goes without saying that the safety of firearms officers and their families is at real risk because of the extensive publicity that such cases attract. Parliament should, therefore, presume that to be the case. However, even anonymity does not avoid the intense stress that such officers, who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us, must endure while waiting for trial, which can, of course, take years, so I agree with the principle behind Amendment 394: that a higher threshold should be set before such a prosecution can take place. Whether this should be as high a threshold as requiring the case to be exceptional before there can be a prosecution is a matter for debate, but I agree that the factors set out in proposed new subsection (5), which would be inserted by Amendment 394—

“the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and … the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments”—

should always be given particular weight.

Where a prosecution is brought, especially if there is no higher threshold for prosecution, my Amendment 403 is designed to mitigate the penalty imposed if certain conditions are met. I tabled this amendment in Committee. but the debate took place with just 10 Peers in the Chamber at 11.15 at night, so I have brought it back on Report. It is about whether police firearms officers who use excessive force on the spur of the moment in the honest but mistaken belief that the degree of force is reasonable, and who would otherwise be entitled to rely on self-defence, should be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Thirty years ago, in the Lee Clegg case, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords recommended that, in these circumstances, law enforcement officers should not be treated the same as terrorists and other murderers if they use excessive force; and that they should be convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I find that a statement of the obvious. Quoting the Court of Appeal, Lord Lloyd of Berwick said:

“There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorist or domestic murders, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car driving through an army checkpoint and, being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the … shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified … we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence which he had committed”.


However, Lord Lloyd ruled that it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law and that it was for Parliament to do so. Here we are, 30 years on, with that opportunity.

In rejecting my amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister said that it would

“create a two-tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duties are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population”.

But is treating police firearms officers differently from other murderers a two-tier justice system? Surely not. We are not treating like with like. Police firearms officers who go on duty, risking their lives to protect us all and, in the words of the Minister, are

“having to make life and death decisions in an instant”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 266.]

are emphatically in a different category from those who kill with an evil motive. The law should therefore treat them differently.