The UK government is set to receive the results of a major review into police accountability within the coming weeks, amid growing demands from police forces for greater legal protection when using force. The review follows controversy after police marksman Martyn Blake was tried—and later acquitted—for the murder of Chris Kaba. Blake’s swift acquittal, decided within three hours by a jury, has emboldened calls for changes to the law.
The proposed changes could potentially shield officers from prosecution in cases of fatal force, raising concerns among human rights groups who believe that weakening accountability mechanisms will “undermine public trust.” Critics warn that such measures risk creating an environment where officers may act with near impunity, leading to further tensions between law enforcement and communities, particularly those already marginalised by systemic biases.
Rights Groups Warn Against “Licence to Kill”
A coalition of rights groups, including Inquest, Liberty, and Black Lives Matter, have sent a letter to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, strongly opposing any reduction in police scrutiny. They argue that police accountability is already minimal, noting that since 1990, there has been only one successful prosecution of a police officer for manslaughter and none for murder.
“This review is less of a kneejerk reaction and more of a calculated attempt to erode existing oversight systems,” the groups said in their statement. They also highlighted alarming statistics: a 10% rise in police use of force in 2023-24, and the highest number of police-related deaths in a decade. Inquest reports 1,915 deaths following police custody or contact since 1990, many involving individuals from racialised communities.
Proposed Legal Changes Could Limit Accountability
As part of the ongoing review, new laws are expected to grant anonymity to firearms officers involved in fatal shootings unless they are convicted. The review, led by a former judge and a senior Scotland Yard official, is also examining whether it should be harder for inquests to rule that police unlawfully killed someone. Another key proposal under consideration is changing the burden of proof during misconduct investigations from the civil standard of “balance of probabilities” to the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt.”
This shift could significantly limit the ability of families to hold officers accountable for excessive or negligent use of force. Deborah Coles, director of Inquest, criticised the proposals, stating, “This review is a cynical attempt to protect the police from accountability. The law should not give them a licence to kill.”
Families of Victims Speak Out
The families of individuals killed by police have voiced frustration over the review’s perceived focus on protecting officers rather than addressing systemic issues. Susan Alexander, whose son Azelle Rodney was killed by police in 2005, said, “Instead of pushing to weaken accountability, imagine how many lives could be saved if police invested their energy in change and listened to the families affected.”
Rodney was shot while allegedly on his way to rob a rival gang, but an inquiry later found that the use of force was disproportionate. His mother’s criticism highlights how many families believe the current system already favours law enforcement, leaving victims with limited avenues for justice.
Balancing Police Powers and Public Trust
The government’s task is to find a delicate balance between ensuring officers have the confidence to use their powers effectively and reassuring the public that law enforcement operates within the boundaries of the law. Advocates for stronger protections argue that officers face split-second decisions in life-or-death situations, requiring legal safeguards. However, rights groups stress that unchecked power could erode public trust, especially among communities with longstanding grievances against police practices.
As the review’s findings emerge, the outcome is expected to shape the future relationship between policing, accountability, and human rights in the UK. For families, activists, and law enforcement alike, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
