‘Our son deserved better’: Family of Chris Kaba issue statement after Met officer cleared of murder
The family of Chris Kaba have said they have been left with the “deep pain of injustice” after the police marksman who shot him was cleared of murder.
Martyn Blake, 40, fired a single bullet through the windscreen of the Audi Q8 the 24-year-old was driving as armed officers surrounded the car in Streatham, south London, while he tried to escape.
The jury deliberated for about three hours on Monday to clear Mr Blake, who appeared to be briefly overcome with emotion as the verdict was returned.
Mr Kaba’s family sat in silence in court, but in a later statement said the not guilty verdict had left them with “the deep pain of injustice”.
“No family should endure the unimaginable grief we have faced. Chris was stolen from us, and this decision shows his life – and many others like him – does not matter to the system. Our son deserved better,” the statement issued by the campaign group Inquest said.
Chris Kaba was shot dead in Streatham, south London
“The acquittal of Martyn Blake isn’t just a failure for our family, but for all those affected by police violence.”
The family vowed that they “won’t be silenced” and will continue fighting for “justice and for real change”.
The verdict was called a “devastating moment” for the “family, our community and the nation”, by the Justice For Chris Kaba Campaign.
‘Huge sacrifice’
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said Mr Blake made a split-second decision on what he thought was necessary “to protect his colleagues and to protect London”.
“No firearms officer sets out on duty intent with ending a life,” Sir Mark said, speaking outside New Scotland Yard after the verdict. “Their sole purpose is the complete opposite, the protection and preservation of life.”
Blake shot through the windscreen of an Audi Q8
He said Mr Blake has paid a “huge personal and professional sacrifice” over the past two years since the shooting and that he worries about the lack of support officers receive.
“No police officer is above the law, but we have been clear that the system holding police to account is broken,” Sir Mark said.
“I worry about the lack of support officers face for doing their best, but most of all, I worry for the public. The more we crush the spirit of good officers, the less they can fight crime that risks London becoming less safe.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper added it was a “very difficult case” causing “deep concerns for communities, for police officers and of course causing real distress for the families most closely affected”.
She said it is imperative the jury’s decision is “respected and everyone is given the space to process the verdict”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chris Kaba verdict: Met reaction
Conservative leadership hopeful Robert Jenrick called Mr Blake a “hero” adding that his prosecution was “wrong”.
“The ordeal he [Mr Blake] has gone through, unthinkable. We must back our brave police officers, and not drag them through the courts for making split-second decisions,” Mr Jenrick said.
‘I think there is police behind me’
A helicopter and six police cars were involved in stopping Mr Kaba on the night of 5 September 2022 after the vehicle he was driving had been linked to a shooting outside a school in nearby Brixton the previous evening, the Old Bailey heard.
Mr Kaba knew he was being followed, telling a friend Elisha Fizul: “Lish, one sec, I think there is police behind me,” before he turned into Kirkstall Gardens, where Mr Blake was inside a marked BMW.
The trial hinged on the following 17 seconds, which saw the Audi reverse a short distance, hitting an unmarked car behind, then accelerate forward, reaching an estimated 12mph before colliding with the BMW and a parked Tesla.
Read more:
Ex-police marksman calls for ‘better understanding’ of officers who use lethal force
Armed officers were heard shouting “go, go, go” and “armed police, get out of the f***ing car,” as they surrounded the vehicle, in footage played in court.
The Audi then reversed at 8mph, hitting the unmarked Volvo behind, and was stationary as Mr Blake pulled the trigger of his carbine less than a second later, followed by shouts of “shots fired” and “where from?”
Mr Kaba, who was not armed and had no weapons in the car, had both hands on the steering wheel when he was shot in the head and he died in hospital in the early hours of the next day.
Prosecutors said Mr Blake may have “become angry, frustrated and annoyed” and Mr Kaba had done nothing in the seconds before he was shot to justify his decision to pull the trigger.
Mr Kaba’s mother Helen Lumuanganu (left), outside the Old Bailey. Pic: PA
They said the Metropolitan Police officer gave a “false” and “exaggerated” account when he said Mr Kaba used his car as a weapon in a bid “to escape at any cost”.
Mr Blake, who was previously known as NX121 before a judge lifted an anonymity order, told jurors he was “full of dread” as he heard wheel-spinning and the car’s engine revving.
He said he didn’t intend to kill Mr Kaba, adding: “I had a genuine belief that there was an imminent threat to life, I thought one or more of my colleagues was about to die.
“I thought I was the only person with effective firearms cover at the time.
“If I hadn’t acted, I thought one of my colleagues would be dead. I felt I had a duty to protect them at the time.”
Chris Kaba’s father and mother
Chris Kaba was shot dead on 5 September
One armed officer said he would have opened fire if Mr Blake had not, while another said he was fractions of a second away from doing so.
Mr Kaba’s shooting sparked a wave of protests, while his family have campaigned for justice.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) handed a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in March last year, following an almost seven-month investigation.
It will review the case before deciding if Mr Blake should face gross misconduct proceedings.
In a statement on Monday, IOPC director Amanda Rowe defended the decision to refer the shooting to the CPS.
She said the decision to refer the case followed “careful consideration of a significant amount of evidence” gathered during its independent investigation.
“The matter has now been heard in open court and the officer has accounted for his actions before a jury,” Ms Rowe said.
“Ultimately it is that jury’s decision, having carefully considered all the evidence, to determine guilt or innocence and we respect that decision and thank them for their consideration.”
Some Met firearms officers turned in their weapons after Mr Blake was charged in September last year, while the force’s commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, called for greater legal protections after a review was ordered by then home secretary Suella Braverman.
Mr Blake is only the fourth police officer to be charged with murder or manslaughter over a fatal police shooting in England and Wales since 1990, while a total of 83 people have died in such incidents, according to the Inquest charity.
In that time only one on duty officer, Benjamin Monk, has been found guilty of manslaughter – over the death of former Aston Villa striker Dalian Atkinson, 48 – while none have been convicted of murder.
Downing Street has indicated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived on British soil following an international arrest warrant being issued for him.
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
The UK government was reluctant to commit to saying Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to the UK but Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said the government would “fulfil its legal obligations” in relation to the arrest warrant.
“The UK will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law, and indeed international law,” he said.
He added the domestic process linked to ICC arrest warrants has never been used to date by the UK because the country has never been visited by anyone wanted by the international court.
Earlier on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it “wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment” on the processes involved as the ICC is independent, although the UK is a member.
She told Sky News: “We’ve always respected the importance of international law, but in the majority of the cases that they pursue, they don’t become part of the British legal process.
“What I can say is that obviously, the UK government’s position remains that we believe the focus should be on getting a ceasefire in Gaza.”
However, Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, told Sky News: “If Netanyahu comes to Britain, our obligation under the Rome Convention would be to arrest him under the warrant from the ICC.
“Not really a question of should, we are required to because we are members of the ICC.”
After winning July’s election the government said it would not oppose the ICC’s right to issue the warrants.
Netanyahu and Gallant (right) have arrest warrants against them. File pic: Reuters
Ireland, France and Italy have signalled they would arrest Netanyahu if he came to their countries.
Asked if police would arrest the Israeli leader in Ireland, Irish Taoiseach Simon Harris said: “Yes, absolutely. We support international courts and we apply their warrants.”
Germany said it would make a decision if Netanyahu came to Germany but said it is one of the “biggest supporters of the ICC”, partly as a result of history.
A German government spokesman said: “At the same time, it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and a great responsibility with Israel.”
An ICC arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri, the mastermind behind the 7 October attacks in Israel, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israel claims Al Masri was killed earlier this year but the ICC said that has not been confirmed, so it was issuing the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “antisemitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
Read more:
What satellite images tell us about North Gaza
Hamas ready for Gaza ceasefire ‘immediately’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why have arrest warrants been issued?
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday he would invite Netanyahu to visit Hungary and he would guarantee the arrest warrant would “not be observed”.
The ICC originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and on Thursday announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
It is the first time a sitting leader of a major Western ally has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global court of justice.
Hundreds of people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue legal action against MI5, judges have ruled.
More than 300 people, including survivors and those bereaved by the 2017 attack at an Ariana Grande concert, brought a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), claiming failures to take “appropriate measures” to prevent the incident infringed their human rights.
In a ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey said the cases could not proceed as they were brought too late.
Lord Justice Singh said: “We are particularly conscious of the importance of the rights concerned… We are also conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.
“Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.
“The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable.
“Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed.”
File pic: AP
Lord Justice Singh acknowledged that while the tribunal “readily understand” why the legal claims were not filed until after the final report from the inquiry into the attack, “real expedition” was needed at that point.
The judge added: “We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been.”
Had the claims gone ahead, the judge noted the security services would have needed to “divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities” – which includes preventing future attacks.
Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated a rucksack bomb at the end of an Ariana Grande show at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi
Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter, three of the law firms representing complainants affected, said the ruling was “extremely disappointing” for their clients.
In a statement, the firms said: “Ever since the attack in May 2017, our clients have had to endure continued delays but have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved.
“It took almost six years for the failings of MI5 to be revealed, confirmed when the inquiry chair published his volume three findings in March 2023, in which he said MI5 had missed a ‘significant opportunity’ to prevent the attack.
“This report concluded that within this six-year period, the security service corporate witnesses X and J gave evidence on oath that had presented an inaccurate picture, and the same inaccurate picture had been presented to Lord Anderson when he compiled his report in December 2017.”
Read more from Sky News:
‘Blood on their hands’: Could MI5 have prevented the Manchester attack?
Manchester attack survivors awarded £45k after suing man who claims it was a hoax
Police officers who went for kebab on night of terror attack given final warnings
The law firms said following these findings, their clients believed the IPT would “provide the route to the formal vindication of their human rights”.
The firms added: “We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing. Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 – six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5.
“This judgment certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5. There were failings by MI5 and multiple other parties leading up to and on the actual evening of 22 May 2017 and collectively we continue to support our clients in their fight for full accountability and justice.”
Police with members of the public after the attack. Pic: PA
The inquiry into the bombing found it might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months before the attack.
The agency’s director-general, Ken McCallum, expressed deep regret that such intelligence was not obtained.
Two pieces of information about Abedi were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.
But inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said, having heard from MI5 witnesses at the hearings, he considered that did not present an “accurate picture”.
Lawyers for those affected previously said the inquiry found there was a “real possibility” that one of the pieces of intelligence could have obtained information which may have led to actions preventing the attack.
And at the hearing earlier this month, Pete Weatherby KC, for those affected, described the IPT claims as “the next step” in vindication for his clients after the inquiry’s findings.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway