The scene is a busy road in one of London’s many suburbs. Two men are seen driving slowly down the road in a black car. Suddenly their car is stopped, and they are surrounded by eight heavily armed men. Two shots ring out with no warning, and the driver slumps down, dying as his friend tries to comfort him. The authorities arrive, all the assailants are arrested, a gun which has been fired twice is seized; and all those arrested are interviewed under caution. The car, the surviving passenger, the dead driver; all are searched, but no weapons are found. All those interviewed have availed themselves of legal representation, in compliance with the Police & Criminal Evidence Act. All interviews are video-recorded, with double back-up copies to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice.
A fanciful piece of legal fiction; you may say, and you may well be correct: but transpose the scene to Tottenham’s High Street, the day that the riots broke out in Tottenham, followed by similar mayhem across the country; the dead driver of the car was Mark Duggan, and the heavily-armed men were all police officers. But here is where the truth diverges from the story: in that whilst all the assailants were interviewed under caution in the story, not ONE policeman has been interviewed, not ONE Policeman, and certainly not the man who fired his gun twice at the body of an unarmed man. The so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission is due to report in the Autumn, but it must be asked what sort of Report will it be when absolutely No police evidence, given under caution, can be introduced as part of the report, when no evidence has been taken?