Mark Duggan: Inquest decision `reasonable`

The Court of Appeal has upheld an inquest’s finding that Mark Duggan was ‘lawfully killed’ by a police officer in 2011. Mr Duggan’s family had sought to quash the inquest jury’s conclusion that police officer V53 acted within criminal law to fatally shoot Mr Duggan, an event that led to five days of riots across London and other English cities. Seeking to overturn the 2014 finding, the family asserted that the coroner gave wrong directions about the law to the jury. The central question raised was whether the inquest should have decided not simply whether the officer who shot Mr Duggan honestly believed he was holding a gun but also whether it was reasonable. Dismissing the appeal on Wednesday (March 29), the three judges said “that consideration was, as a matter of common sense, an inevitable part of the exercise”.  A second basis for the appeal – that the inquest should have used a civil definition of self-defence, which includes reasonableness, instead of a criminal definition – was also dismissed as being legally incorrect. Mr Duggan was intercepted in Tottenham by Metropolitan Police Service officers, knowing he was in possession of a firearm and suspecting he was about to use it. The inquest jury concluded that Mr Duggan jumped out of the minicab he was travelling in as soon as it stopped and dropped a handgun on to some grass nearby. It also concluded V53 honestly believed Mr Duggan still had a gun at the time he was shot. The judges – Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice Burnett and the Chief Coroner, Judge Peter Thornton QC, said: “The Court dismisses the appeal. As to the first point, as modified, it holds that there was no need for the coroner to spell out to the jury that, as part of their decision whether V53 honestly believed that Mr Duggan had a gun and was about to use it, they needed to consider whether such a belief was reasonable. That consideration was, as a matter of common sense, an inevitable part of the exercise that they had to carry out.  “As to the second point, it is established law that the role of an inquest jury, where self-defence is in issue, is to consider whether the killing was in breach of the criminal law. An inquest is not concerned with questions of civil liability.”