Discontinuation of the misconduct hearing
The misconduct hearing involving a Metropolitan Police firearms officer, identified only as W80, has been discontinued. The decision brings to a close nearly a decade of legal and procedural drama surrounding the 2015 shooting of Jermaine Baker in north London.
The officer had been facing allegations of gross misconduct following an investigation into the fatal shooting during a Police operation intended to foil a prison break near Wood Green Crown Court. The Metropolitan Police firearms officer had previously come under scrutiny after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided in 2017 that there was insufficient evidence to charge him with a criminal offence.
What happened in 2015?
Jermaine Baker, a 28-year-old father from Tottenham, was in the front passenger seat of a stolen Audi A6 when he was shot at close range by W80, a counter-terrorism specialist. Police were tracking a plot to spring two prisoners from a van transporting them to court. Although Mr. Baker was unarmed, an imitation firearm was later found in the car used in the plot. The shooting occurred as officers believed Mr. Baker was reaching for a weapon and did not comply with an instruction to show his hands.
The incident prompted a public inquiry which, in 2022, concluded that Mr. Baker was lawfully killed. The inquiry noted the presence of an imitation firearm in the vehicle but emphasized the overall finding that the use of lethal force by the officer was legally justified given the circumstances perceived by the officer at the time.
Why the hearing was controversial
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigations led to a line of discipline against the officer, insisting that W80 face gross misconduct proceedings. The legal process extended over several years, reflecting broader questions about the handling of use-of-force cases within the Metropolitan Police and the protections afforded to officers operating in high-stakes environments.
The hearing at Palestra House began under intense public and media scrutiny because of the protracted legal journey and the high-profile nature of the operation, which involved counter-terrorism and a foiled prison break. The panel, led by Chairman Chris McKay, ultimately determined that there was no case for W80 to answer in relation to gross misconduct. The ruling was delivered after the panel reviewed thousands of pages of documents and considered submissions from the officer’s representatives.
Statements from key figures
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley described the outcome as a difficult milestone, citing a “decade of legal madness” and calling on the government to publish and implement reviews and recommendations that affect officers’ protections in the line of duty. He stressed the need for a more timely and just system that can support frontline officers who routinely place themselves in harm’s way to protect the public.
Advocacy groups and unions have also weighed in. The Metropolitan Police Federation stated that firearms officers operate in one of the world’s most challenging environments and deserve robust legal protections. They cautioned against decisions that might undermine public confidence in the use-of-force framework, even as they welcomed the ability of W80 to put the case behind him.
What’s next?
The panel signalled that full reasons for their decision would be published in the coming days, in line with procedure. While the misconduct case against W80 has been dismissed, the broader questions raised by the Baker case — including planning, command, and execution of the firearms operation — continue to be examined in public inquiries and by oversight bodies. The legacy of Jermaine Baker’s death has already influenced the discourse on policing, accountability, and the safety of officers who confront dangerous situations daily.
Public and professional response
Reaction from officials has been mixed. Some welcome the decision as a closure for a law enforcement officer who wore one of the country’s top-tier firearms credentials. Others view it as part of a longer debate about the balance between individual accountability and systemic reforms within policing. As the Met and oversight bodies digest and publish the formal reasons for the panel’s ruling, the case serves as a reminder of the complexity surrounding use-of-force investigations and their impact on communities and officers alike.
