Damning indictment of police actions surrounding death of Azelle Rodney

10 July 2013 by

Azelle RodneyOn 5th July 2013, the report of the inquiry into the death of Azelle Rodney was published. Mr Rodney was a 24-year-old man who was shot dead by a Metropolitan Police officer on 30th April 2005. Mr Rodney was the rear seat passenger in a vehicle driven by an acquaintance of his and was unarmed.

After the Metropolitan Police had brought the vehicle to a halt, a firearms officer, described as ‘E7’ in the inquiry’s report, shot Mr Rodney 6 times without warning with a Heckler & Koch assault rifle. The fifth and sixth of these shots were a military-style ‘double tap’ to Mr Rodney’s head and would have been fatal. E7 then briefly paused before shooting Mr Rodney a further two times in the head. These shots would also have been fatal.

E7 stated to the inquiry that he shot Mr Rodney because he believed that Mr Rodney had picked up a gun in the vehicle and was about to use it. The inquiry did not accept E7’s evidence. It found that E7 did not believe, for good reason, that Mr Rodney presented a threat to his life or that of his colleagues such that it was proportionate to open fire on him with a lethal weapon. The inquiry further found that even if E7 had believed that Mr Rodney had picked up an automatic weapon, E7 would have seen Mr Rodney collapsing before he fired the fatal fifth to eight shots, meaning that firing these shots so as to kill Mr Rodney was unjustified, disproportionate, unreasonable and unlawful.

Article 2 duty

The inquiry was held in order to satisfy the UK’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life. Article 2 entails a procedural duty on the part of the state to carry out an adequate investigation into deaths occurring under its responsibility in order to ensure the accountability of state agents. An inquest into Mr Rodney’s death would ordinarily have been the means by which the state discharged this investigative obligation, but an inquest could not be held because the coroner accepted submissions made to him that relevant intelligence material could not be shown to him or a jury.

The inquiry carried out a commendably thorough investigation and its report represents damning criticism of the Metropolitan Police’s operation and of the particular actions of E7. The inquiry could have chosen to adopt the approach of other inquiries, coroners and juries in cases concerning individuals killed by the police, by deferring to the operational pressures the police were under and substantially exonerating the police from culpability for the death as a result. After all, various such pressures existed in the Azelle Rodney case. Mr Rodney and the two men he was with in the vehicle were believed to be on their way to rob, at gunpoint, Colombian drug dealers in possession of a substantial quantity of cocaine. The police believed that the men in the vehicle had access to automatic weapons and two loaded guns were subsequently found in the vehicle, including one that was cocked and had its safety catch off. However, the inquiry’s report was clear that these factors did not justify the killing of Mr Rodney, who did nothing to cause E7 to rationally believe that he was about to use a gun.

Other criticisms made of the police by the inquiry included the following:

  • The police operation was not planned and controlled so as to minimise recourse to lethal force.
  • There were no adequate risk and threat assessments which addressed the dangers likely to arise from the police’s various tactics.
  • There was a systemic failure of communication between police officers.
  • The suspects’ vehicle should not have been deliberately rammed.
  • Rounds were fired into the wheels of the suspects’ vehicle after it had been rammed despite the fact that it presented no risk of escape.
  • Firearms officers failed to wear caps identifying themselves as police officers.
  • There was a failure to debrief the firearms officers to see what, if anything, had gone wrong or whether there were lessons to be learned.
  • No single officer of sufficient seniority and common sense was put in charge of managing the scene of the incident, which meant that Mr Rodney’s body was left where it lay, after being pulled out onto the pavement, for more than 16 hours; his blood had not been fully cleaned away by the time his family attended the scene.

The inquiry’s full report and executive summary can be found here.


The inquiry’s report is scathing about the actions of the police but its findings also lead to serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”) as an investigative body. The circumstances surrounding Mr Rodney’s death were first investigated by the IPCC.

Remarkably, the IPCC rejected all complaints against the police, did not recommend any prosecutions and did not make any finding of significant fault on the part of the police. These conclusions are startling in light of what was found by the inquiry. The inquiry’s report is likely therefore not only to lead to calls for the criminal prosecution of the Metropolitan Police and individual police officers but also for the reform of the IPCC so that it carries out its duty and genuinely holds the police to account.

Sarabjit Singh is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row

Sign upto free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. Bit late in responding due to holiday. I have worked with a police tactical unit, not the Met, as a forensic psychologist, so I am very much aware of the split second decisions that often have to be made. The reliability of these decisions depends very much on the background intelligence provided. In this case I understand that intelligence indicated that Rodney was in possession of a rapid firing automatic weapon, if E7 had waited another second before shooting & Rodney had such a weapon he would be dead now & so would many other good police officers & passers-by.. Unfortunately the inquiry team seems to have been made up of lawyers & civil servants, none of whom, I suspect, have any experience of tactical policing. The IPCC, which would have such experience, found no fault, I think this says a lot

  2. Mike says:

    No matter what Mr. Rodney was perceived to have done, he deserved a fair trial, not “double taps” or single taps.
    The investigation found that “E7” over stepped the mark, and killed Mr. Rodney unnecessarily.
    We don’t want death squads in this country.
    E7 should be prosecuted for the unnecessary taking of a man’s life.

  3. Mike says:

    It is very refreshing to see the truth at last in this case.
    Now we must see follow-up, and a prosecution.
    For too long, these psychopaths in uniform have had cart blanche to do as they like. Hopefully, this is the start of something better.

  4. Tim says:

    It’s nice how this article is worded to make it sound like the officer chose to execute the criminal. The “double tap” was in no way military style. It just happens that when shooting through a passenger side window, your head tends to be exposed. Also the “pause” before firing again was 0.7 seconds. This article makes it out to be a much longer pause.

    As far as E7 knew, Azelle had an 18 rounds per second machine pistol in the car. He had under a second to determine if Azelle was a threat, he thought he was so he fired. Azelle was still upright so he fired again (standard armed police procedure, if a criminal is not down, he is still a threat). The court ruling was a absolute farce. Read the minutes and you’ll see that Sir Christopher Holland spent a lot of time discussing what their plans for lunch break and rest breaks were. He’s hardly the type of person that is likely to have any knowledge whatsoever of the situation at hand. Had E7 not fired and had Azelle had a machine pistol, all of the officers involved and the bystanders would have been in danger.

    So the choice that E7 made, deeming Azelle a threat and firing is a choice I support. We put these officers in danger and charge them with the responsibility of making the decisions we can’t, then when they make those decisions we hang them for it. What if there is a similar situation near you, and the officer that should be protecting you holds fire fearing repercussions, and the criminal is dangerous. When you or your child have been shot dead due to a police officer hesitating due to fear of consequences, that will be on our societies head for creating this situation.

    Let’s not forget that this was not an innocent man. Three firearms were found in the car, the car was on it’s way to steal drugs in an armed raid, and Azelle had both previous convictions and outstanding warrants. I find it amazing that you care so much for the human rights of criminals. What about our human rights? The rights of the average person. I have the right to live in a society safe from armed criminals do I not? Apparently I don’t, as the people with the responsibility to protect us have to guard against us.

  5. John Allman says:

    It’s a rum sort of “damning indictment” that does not result in anybody being indicted, or damned.

  6. Chris says:

    The police do seem to have carte blanch when it comes to shooting UK citizens

  7. Pillsbury says:

    No loss – Littlejohn [for once] got it right in his column yesterday. No concern, I see ,in your whimpering about the deceased’s future victims? Typical of 3rd rate lawyers to second guess officers who must make split-second decisions and easy to do so from a chair in the Temple [yes – I know that the Constabulary DO get it wrong]. This contribution shows a misdirected sense of priorities. The ECHR is quickly becoming a dead duck itself.

  8. Pleb says:

    Don’t think there are going to be any firearms officer in the Met. soon……..wonder how the Army will deal with situations like this?

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: