E7 fails attempt at judicial review
A police marksman has failed in his attempt to secure a judicial review of the conclusions of the Azelle Rodney inquiry.
A police marksman has failed in his attempt to secure a judicial review of the Azelle Rodney inquirys conclusions.
The 2013 inquiry found that there was no lawful justification for the officer, known as E7, to have shot Mr Rodney six times when the car he was travelling in was stopped by armed police in 2005.
Detectives believed Mr Rodney was on his way to commit a robbery.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer told the inquiry he held an honest belief that Mr Rodney was preparing to fire a machine gun at him, something the inquiry rejected.
E7 issued a claim for permission to seek a judicial review that sought a declaration that the inquiry chairmans conclusions are irrational, or alternatively they were reached by a procedurally unfair process, or an order quashing those parts of the report which conclude that his use of force was not lawfully justified.
Speaking at the High Court last month, Samantha Leek QC, representing E7, said the inquirys decision to come to a verdict of unlawful killing was not a logical conclusion, either on the forensic or eyewitness evidence, that E7 did not honestly believe there was an imminent threat to his colleagues lives.
The High Court judgment on February 27 concluded that proving the chair of the inquiry, Sir Christopher Holland, reached irrational conclusions on the facts is too problematic to be surmounted.
Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queens Bench Division, said: Although we accept that the approach which he adopted was open to challenge, having dealt extensively with that issue, we see no value in granting permission to pursue the issue further, in circumstances where it could not change the fundamental conclusion of the inquiry. Permission is therefore refused.
E7 could now face criminal charges.