Killing of Jermaine Baker

Baker, who was unarmed, was shot during a police operation to prevent a suspected plot to free two prisoners being transported to Wood Green Crown Court.

On 11 December 2015, he was sat in the front seat of a car near Wood Green Crown Court in North London.

The Metropolitan Police were aware of the plan and had intelligence that the gang had access to firearms and thus deployed armed officers to prevent the escape.

[7] In the days following the shooting, several media reports claimed that Baker was a gang member and linked him to Duggan, who was shot by police four years earlier.

[11] On 14 December, the Monday after the shooting, the Met suspended W80 at the request of the IPCC, who announced that they were investigating the incident as a homicide.

[13] The Police Federation rejected the IPCC's characterisation of Baker's death as a homicide, and said the life of the arrested officer had been "thrown into disarray.

"[13] Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at the time, said the IPCC's decision to launch a homicide investigation was "unusual" and that he did not know the basis for the characterisation.

[13][14] In November 2016, the IPCC referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a decision on whether to, indicating that it believed the investigation showed that a criminal offence may have been committed.

[23] At the time of his retirement, the IPCC was considering bringing disciplinary action against him for gross misconduct in relation to the briefing he delivered to his officers before Baker's shooting.

[7] The High Court dismissed the claim in October 2016 on the grounds that the officer's right "to conduct his life as he wishes" outweighed the potential benefit to Baker's family of him remaining in post.

[23] Following the verdict, Baker's family and the charity Inquest accused the IPCC of betraying them, and of failing to hold the Met to account.

[26][27] The ruling confirmed that, in cases where officers claim to have made an honest mistake in concluding that they faced imminent danger, their use of force may nonetheless constitute misconduct if that belief is found to have been unreasonable.

[33] In February 2020, Home Secretary Priti Patel announced a public inquiry into Baker's death in place of an inquest.

[11] Instead, the findings concluded, the police operation was motivated by a "delusional" belief that they were acting to eradicate lethal firearms from north London.

[11] The inquiry chair, Clement Goldstone, said he had found no evidence that race played a role in Baker's death.