Armed officers from other forces will be drafted in to support the Metropolitan Police as it faces a revolt.
Soldiers are also on standby after scores of Met Police officers stood down from firearms duties following a murder charge against one of their colleagues.
The force said “a number of officers have taken the decision to step back from armed duties while they consider their position” and “that number has increased over the past 48 hours”.
“To ensure that we can continue to keep the public safe and respond to any eventualities, from Saturday evening Met firearms officers will be supported by a limited number of armed officers from other UK forces,” the Met Police added.
The crisis has emerged after a police officer was charged with murder over the shooting of 24-year-old Chris Kaba, who was killed in September last year in Streatham Hill, south London.
Image: A police officer has been charged with the murder of Chris Kaba (pictured)
The officer accused of his murder is named only as NX121 after a district judge granted an anonymity order.
The force’s commissioner Sir Mark Rowley welcomed a review into the situation by Home Secretary Suella Braverman to ensure armed officers “have the confidence to do their job”.
It was also backed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who said armed officers need “clarity” about their legal powers.
Speaking to broadcasters during a visit to a community centre in Hertfordshire, Mr Sunak said armed officers are “making life or death decisions in a split-second to keep us safe” and “they deserve our gratitude for their bravery”.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:44
Will police get better legal protection?
He added: “Now it is important when they are using these legal powers that they do so with clarity, and they have certainty about what they are doing, especially given the lethality they are using.
“That is why the home secretary has asked her department to review the guidance that the officers are operating under to make sure it is robust and that it commands the confidence, not just of the officers, but of the public as well.
“Obviously it wouldn’t be right for me to speculate on ongoing cases, but that is what we are doing.”
What legal protections do armed police officers have?
Most police officers in the UK do not routinely carry firearms. Where firearms support is needed, it is carried out by specially accredited firearms officers (AFOs) who are trained, including to assess intelligence and threats.
Duties include responding to high-risk incidents; taking part in operations where intelligence suggests firearms support may be required; providing public reassurance at events; providing enhanced and ballistic medical aid to help save lives and working closely with partners, including the military.
Despite making important and often time-critical decisions, they are still accountable under the law for their actions.
Under the law, armed police officers have the right to discharge a firearm to make a lawful arrest, defend themselves from unlawful violence and to protect others from harm – if they have reasonable grounds for believing there is an imminent danger to life.
The Home Office code of practice on police use of firearms in England and Wales stipulates “all force used must be reasonable in the circumstances”.
In Scottish law, a police officer is not entitled to discharge a firearm against a person unless the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is committing – or about to commit – an action likely to endanger the life or cause serious injury to the officer or any other person, and there is no other way to prevent the danger.
As with all use of force by police officers, if the force used results in death, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows “the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary”.
The question of whether a use of force was absolutely necessary in the circumstances is one that depends to a large degree on the facts of the individual case.
The onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.
‘London isn’t as safe as it was’
Tony Long, a former firearms officer with the Met Police, told Sky News London is now a less safe city, saying: “The only reason [Sir Mark Rowley is paying attention now] is because… they’ve withdrawn their services because of their concerns, and he’s left with a situation where he’s having to call in the military.
“He’s having to get much-lesser-trained officers to step up to do jobs that they’re literally not trained to do, and at the same time, try and convince you all… it’s business as usual.
“It isn’t business as usual – the public in London are not as safe as they would be if armed response vehicles, officers and counter-terror specialist firearms officers were being allowed to do their job.”
‘Public expects us to be held to highest standards’
In his letter, Sir Mark suggested legal changes over the way self-defence is interpreted in police misconduct cases, the introduction of a criminal standard of proof for unlawful killing in inquests and inquiries, and changes to the threshold at which the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) can launch an investigation.
“It is essential that we have a system which commands the confidence of officers and the communities they serve,” he wrote.
“Of course, where wrongdoing takes place, the public expect us to be held to the highest standards.
“I have been clear on this in all areas of policing, and the use of force must be no exception.
“The system that judges officers’ actions should be rooted in integrity and decisions should be reached swiftly, competently and without fear or favour.
“A review is needed to address accountability mechanisms, including the policies and practices of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), ideally with a focus on the threshold for investigating police use of force and involvement in pursuits.”
Russell Brand has been charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault between 1999 and 2005.
The Metropolitan Police say the 50-year-old comedian, actor and author has also been charged with one count of oral rape and one count of indecent assault.
The charges relate to four women.
He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 May.
Police have said Brand is accused of raping a woman in the Bournemouth area in 1999 and indecently assaulting a woman in the Westminster area of London in 2001.
He is also accused of orally raping and sexually assaulting a woman in Westminster in 2004.
The fourth charge alleges that a woman was sexually assaulted in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.
Police began investigating Brand, from Oxfordshire, in September 2023 after receiving a number of allegations.
The comedian has previously denied the accusations, and said all his sexual relationships were “absolutely always consensual”.
Met Police Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.
“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.”
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
More on China
Related Topics:
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
Image: These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
Image: The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Image: Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:08
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.