THE family of a policeman shot dead when a training exercise went wrong may seek a judicial review into a decision not to bring criminal charges.
Ian Terry's relatives broke their 10-month silence to criticise the decision.
'Errors'
They claim that the 32-year-old officer died as a result of avoidable errors and failings and say they are waiting for GMP to `acknowledge' that.
Pc Terry was shot and killed last June during a role-play exercise at an empty warehouse in Manchester. He left a wife, Joanne, and two young children.
The Crown Prosecution Service has announced it will not charge GMP , the officer who fired the fatal shot, or any other officer involved in the tragic training exercise with any crime.
Statement
The family, in a statement released to the MEN, revealed they were taking legal advice `with a view to considering whether or not it [that decision] should be judicially reviewed'.
They said their main concern was that `there should be an acknowledgement that Ian was not at fault in any way'.
The statement said: "On June 9, last year, Ian was taken away from us when he was killed during the course of a police training exercise.
"In the intervening 10 months, we have refrained from making any public comment, as we wished for the matter to be investigated so that we could understand how it came about that he was shot in such circumstances.
"We still await an acknowledgment, on the part of the GMP, that Ian, an officer who served the force and the public loyally, died as a result of avoidable errors and failings.
'Armour'
"It has been correctly reported that Ian was not wearing body armour.
"He had not been instructed to wear it and it is the opinion of the experts that it would not have saved him, in any event."
Pc Terry was hit by a shotgun cartridge, designed to deliver CS gas, which was filled with white powder. He was sitting in a car playing the role of a fleeing criminal in the exercise.
Despite the CPS' decision, the Health and Safety Executive could still bring its own prosecution. A full coroner's inquest could take place in the autumn and then the HSE will then decide what, if any, charges to bring.
The MEN understands they may have a strong case against the force under several sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. A senior source said the force could face prosecution under section two of the act.
The section says it is the duty of every employer to ensure `so far as is reasonably practicable' the health, safety and welfare at work of its employees.
If the inquest was to conclude that Pc Terry had been unlawfully killed, the case would have to be reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, a second time.
'Tragic'
GMP chief constable Peter Fahy said: "This is an absolutely tragic incident and we feel very, very much for the Terry family. This is an awful situation for them.
"This is an on-going process. There will be a coroner's inquest and we await the results of the investigation by the HSE. We are keen to learn any lessons we can."
Crown Prosecution lawyer Mark Auty yesterday ruled out criminal proceedings against the force and any individuals.
He said he had decided there was insufficient evidence to charge GMP or any individual officers with offences.
Evidence
The offence of corporate manslaughter had been considered against the force, but Mr Auty decided there was insufficient evidence that Pc Terry's death was caused by decisions taken at senior management level.
In relation to the officer who shot Pc Terry and other officers involved in the training exercise, he considered the offence of gross negligence manslaughter. He concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove their actions on the day were grossly negligent.
A spokeswoman for the CPS said last night: "People are entitled to seek judicial reviews of decisions by the CPS."
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 4 and replies | View All
alvinlwh (08/04/2009 at 12:16)
Esso Blue, High Horse therapy treatment available, Real World Treatment, Manchester. (08/04/2009 at 16:17)
You have PC Terry, you ask the question if he was aware of health and safety regulations.
The officer who shot him was he aware of health and safety regulations. If you are aware of the velocity of the equipment then maybe you are aware of the damage it can cause to someone not wearing Armour.
Had they previously done the same training, is there a culture of not using body Armour.
If the opinion says that the the body Armour would not have prevented him from dying in any event, then the procedural/equipment that can cause such injury should never be used. Has it been changed.
Is it criminal to openly know that even with body Armour on, hit in the same place on the body you are going to die. You might aswell tell the people training that if you get hit in this area you are going to die.
Surely you would use equipment to lower risks otherwise more deaths could happen. You might aswell just use paint ball guns.
Maybe the car should have a perspex partition between driver and passenger and the passenger should be a dummy. It seems the aim of the exercise is the accuracy of the canister
Esso Blue, High Horse therapy treatment available, Real World Treatment, Manchester. (08/04/2009 at 22:46)
These cartridges have they been loaded incorrectly with the wrong amount of gun powder which has led to a bigger force being given off.
If the car was traveling at speed and the projectile was coming towards the force of the car then you have two traveling forces meeting each other so you have to consider the impact of the two forces meeting, if it was the case was that considered before putting the training into practice.
Esso Blue, High Horse therapy treatment available, Real World Treatment, Manchester. (08/04/2009 at 23:03)
So I think the wrong decision was made to use a police officer as target practice, so whether he should wear body armour or not is immaterial, he shouldn't have been in the vehicle, so I am of the view to lay the blame at the script writer.