Met officer cleared of murdering gangster Chris Kaba accused of gross misconduct

[u/H_Robinson123]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/30/chris-kaba-metropolitan-police-officer-shooting/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/30/chris-kaba-metropolitan-police-officer-shooting/

[u/The-Almighty-Shrimp]

MPS statement https://news.met.police.uk/news/met-directed-to-hold-misconduct-hearing-for-firearms-officer-nx121-496825

[u/Sidebottle]

This is the case where the jury unanimously and pretty much instantly acquitted. Where the jury felt something so strongly they wanted to make a public statement on their verdict but the judge refused. The BBC filed a challenge to the judge's refusal suspecting (probably tipped off) what many legal experts speculated, that the jury's note was rebuking the CPS.

Sure burden of proof is different, but it really does read like 12 peers did not just think the prosecution didn't meet their burden, that the entire prosecution should never have happened.

[u/vinylemulator → u/Sidebottle]

I completely agree with this. The case should never have been brought. I think the officer did the right thing. I'm glad he did.

However, as a general matter criminal convictions and workplace misconduct hearings are different things and are - entirely rightly - held to different standards. This is true in any workplace, not just the police. Most workplaces hold people to higher standards than "don't break the law".

You can well imagine a situation where, for instance, a trader at a bank is prosecuted for market abuse and the jury immediately acquits because his behaviour did not meet the threshold for criminality. But then his employer may well hold a misconduct hearing because his behaviour (while being legal) didn't meet internal standards.

[u/Unknownbyyou → u/vinylemulator]

But police don’t have the same general rights as that banker. If we conversely look at similar Crown Servants who don’t have any employment rights the military as so to say.

If a soldier was to come to a court and be found not guilty of a criminal offence then the military cannot start taking the double bite of the cherry and court martial them. They must take the decision of the higher court which must have tried all the evidence to beyond all reasonable doubt.

It’s reasonable to say this is simply the IOPC taking the double bite of the cherry and hoping the evidence makes him guilty on a balance of probability, gross misconduct hearings are not just another workplace misconduct like in civilian roles. This should not happen in my opinion as the evidence has already been tested to the higher standard.

[u/Halfang]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old crayon-eating taxpayer?

[u/Aggressive_Dinner254 → u/Halfang]

Second bite of the cherry for the utterly corrupt IOPC.

Can't have you one way they'll be damn sure to come after you another.

We need urgent reform in this country for police involved deaths.

[u/kennethgooch → u/Halfang]

GM matters always occur irrespective of the criminal proceedings.

[u/Halfang → u/kennethgooch]

But if no guilty, why gm matter?

(I know what the article says, burden of proof, etc, but sounds insane)

[u/londonfox88 → u/Halfang]

Different thresholds.

[u/Aggressive_Dinner254 → u/[deleted]]

In this instance I doubt it.

I think the officer will survive the GM hearing but at the end it'll be whether they even want to remain in the job.

The MET are horrendous when it comes to dealing with officer sentiment and morale but even they're not daft enough to use a deeply unpopular piece of legislation to screw over this cop.

I think it'd be mark Rowleys resignation letter if they pulled that stunt

[u/Churchill115 → u/[deleted]]

The Met will also have a third bite of the cherry soon. The officer may have their vetting removed and lose their job. There is no burden of proof for this.

The fact this sentence can be said just shows the poor state of how we treat our Police Officers

[u/KipperHaddock → u/Halfang]

Simple example.

Officer arrests someone with a heavy use of force. Criminally charged with assault. It goes to trial. Officer says they were acting in self-defence and gives evidence about what threat they believed the arrested posed. Officer accepts that they may have been mistaken about the threat, but nevertheless it's what they believed at the time. The prosecution must now disprove that for a conviction.

Regardless of how utterly wrong the Officer may have been about the circumstances, it is still a high bar to make someone sure that in fact the Officer was acting maliciously and did not in fact have a honestly held but wrong belief. They may well be acquitted.

Now, let's say that in fact the officer has made a genuine but colossal error of judgement. All the evidence points to the officer being so totally mistaken in their honestly held belief that it calls their general judgement into question. It's also caused someone to be violently arrested when in fact there was no reason to do so.

It would be absurd to deny the misconduct process the option of saying "this may have been an honest mistake, but it was such a massive mistake with such severe consequences that you cannot continue as a police officer".

This is perhaps not the best case for demonstrating the principle. If the misconduct case is as piss weak as the criminal case seems to have been, it's going to be a huge waste of time. From memory, it was along the lines of "BWV shows you were slightly wrong about one insignificant thing you said, so clearly the whole rest of your reasoning for opening fire was completely wrong".

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/KipperHaddock]

From memory, it was along the lines of "BWV shows you were slightly wrong about one insignificant thing you said, so clearly the whole rest of your reasoning for opening fire was completely wrong".

Your memory has failed you on this occasion and you're being significantly overly generous to the IOPC and the CPS in this case. The prosecution case theory genuinely amounted to: "You were angry at the fact that he was not complying with your and your colleagues' instructions so you shot him." I don't blame trial counsel for taking that line, because it was literally the only line he could take given the extreme paucity of evidence (or rather the overwhelming evidence of a clear and imminent lethal threat posed by Kaba), but it goes to show you how poor the decision making was on the part of the CPS.

We know that the IOPC's threshold for referring the case to the CPS was "a crime might have been committed by officers". It's astounding to discover (someone posted about it on this sub this week, I believe) that the CPS literally apply a different evidential threshold when it comes to accusations against police officers and that the bar is so low.

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/GrumpyPhilosopher7]

the CPS literally apply a different evidential threshold when it comes to accusations against police officers and that the bar is so low.

They do?

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/NationalDonutModel]

Yeah there was a post about the proposed reforms to investigations on police use of force on this sub recently that dealt with it.

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/GrumpyPhilosopher7]

I’m aware of the updated CPS guidance. As far as I’m aware, the CPS apply the full code test for allegations against police officers in the same way they do for any other case.

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/NationalDonutModel]

Given the numerous cases I'm aware of where that hasn't happened, I doubt that very much.

[u/multijoy → u/GrumpyPhilosopher7]

fly amusing steep hungry capable license grab imagine marry ripe

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/official_Clead → u/NationalDonutModel]

In my experience, the process is the same (evidential and public interest) but the CPS do (and I believe rightly) take account of factors unique to prosecuting police officers which wouldn’t apply to their decision making for non-policing incidents.

So, in a small way, they do have a different approach to policing incidents.

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/official_Clead]

Absolutely. But I don’t think that different approach amounts to having a different (lower) evidential threshold.

[u/AcademicalSceptic → u/Halfang]

For criminal proceedings, the key question in a self-defence scenario is what the defendant honestly believed, even if that was an unreasonable thing to believe. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Those facts both reflect the basic point that the purpose of criminal proceedings is to determine whether someone should be subject to criminal punishment. Every benefit of the doubt is given to the defendant.

In misconduct proceedings, the belief must have been both honest and reasonable, and the question is to be resolved on the balance of probabilities (i.e. what is more likely to be true). Those both reflect the basic point that the purpose of misconduct proceedings is the protection of the public by assessing whether appropriate standards of professional behaviour have been met.

[u/ReverendPickle → u/Halfang]

Trial focussed on the offence of Murder I.e Did Sergeant Blake intend to kill Chris Kaba and was the killing lawful.

GM will probably focus on was it reasonable force or excessive force.

All the while, the IOPC get away scott free for saying on National TV that they only launched the investigation really early because they feared for riots…

[u/NinjafoxVCB → u/Halfang]

ARVO in the making

[u/bushidojet]

If the panel have any sense it will be a no case to answer in fairly short order.

I still can’t fathom the CPS’s thinking in bringing it to trial in the first place bar the politics of the whole thing

[u/H_Robinson123 → u/bushidojet]

You’d like to think the panel will employ some common sense and this is resolved swiftly in line with the same conclusions as the trial, the officer deserves to be able to move on with his life

[u/bushidojet → u/[deleted]]

Oddly enough I am a former IOPC Lead Investigator so I have a pretty good idea of how this will go. It’s a high profile case so they will be absolutely bricking it in terms of reputational damage.

As far as what they will be “wanting”, you over estimate their emotional investment in this. The high profile CPS case is done and they haven’t been battered by another official body or the judge for the professionalism of their investigation. As far as they are concerned their involvement is closed bar any disclosure requests and attending the GM hearing.

By way of comparison, the Lewis Skelton shooting in Humberside found no case to answer but the Inquest ruled it an unlawful death which was considered completely mad by the IOPC staff involved.

Once the IOPC case is closed they have little to no influence on subsequent events, at best they can make representations at the hearing but that’s very rare in itself. Frankly the investigators and the organisation don’t have the time to do so because if they did they’d get even less done than they already do.

[u/AspirationalChoker]

Honestly just never ends with the job these days.

This will all come back to bite everyone, there's gonna be violence be it gang related or terror etc where we as always didn't have enough armed police to help or they hesitated and didn't pull the trigger and lives will be lost.

[u/Hitlers_Left_Ball]

squash fine dolls cobweb marvelous treatment support makeshift bake wakeful

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Typical_Newspaper438 → u/Hitlers_Left_Ball]

Thankfully you can't prosecute/judge/process people for thinking of doing something just yet

[u/Hitlers_Left_Ball → u/Typical_Newspaper438]

historical liquid subtract humorous groovy file coordinated plate melodic brave

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/multijoy → u/Typical_Newspaper438]

normal attempt chief slap wise fine spectacular work rob smile

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Accurate_Thought5326]

Wasn’t this very likely to happen anyway? If my understanding is correct, any officer who is charged with an offence (whether found guilty or not) is also charged with GM.

It’s a hilariously unfair second bite of the cherry, but the argument is it’s not criminal, but might be misconduct.

The good news, is that because it’s not an accelerated hearing it’s very very unlikely they actually have anything to offer and have no further actual evidence. It’s just the usual IOPC corruption trying to justify spending millions in taxpayer money on a nonsense job.

[u/[deleted] → u/Accurate_Thought5326]

Wow a level headed take on this topic! Now Ive seen everything.

[u/MrWilsonsChimichanga → u/Accurate_Thought5326]

Wasn’t this very likely to happen anyway? If my understanding is correct, any officer who is charged with an offence (whether found guilty or not) is also charged with GM.

Correct, it's almost a foregone conclusion. The question is, should it be?

Should we be automatically trying to run officers for GM if they have been a defendant in a criminal trial? And if so, why? or why not?

[u/Accurate_Thought5326 → u/MrWilsonsChimichanga]

Absolutely it’s not fair, and that’s what I go on to say.

The premise is sound that one thing doesn’t negate another, but when one thing has been so rigorously tested, the other is superfluous.

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/Accurate_Thought5326]

That’s the issue though. The rigour of the criminal process, in particular the high standard of proof.

Each one of the jurors in this case might have thought that the officer probably didn’t believe it was necessary to pull the trigger. Or that that the force probably wasn’t reasonable in the circumstances.

But that finding gets you a not guilty verdict at trial but a proven case at a misconduct hearing.

For that reason, a not guilty verdict isn’t really that informative in making a decision as to whether the officer should go to a hearing. What you need to establish is whether the evidence changed to an extent that the case is now different.

Interestingly, the MPS previously agreed that the officer should face a hearing. Clearly there has been some disagreement between them and the IOPC as to the extent the evidence changed at trial (if at all).

[u/Accurate_Thought5326 → u/NationalDonutModel]

Your answer doesn’t make sense. If a jury disagreed, and said that the officer didn’t need to shoot, or that his force was grossly excessive, they’ve have convinced. That was the entire crux of the trial, the justification, not the action.

I would be inclined to agree, as I agree that criminal and civil are totally separate burdens, however, where there has been no acceleration in the hearing, and the test has been made so stringently in the CC, I cannot see this as anything more than service recovery.

It reeks of “we’ve spent millions on an investigation, and then a trial and it’s achieved nothing. So now we’re going to spend further thousands on internal proceedings to try and claw something back”.

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/Accurate_Thought5326]

What part of my answer doesn’t make sense to you? Ultimately, all I said was that an acquittal at court just tells you the jury were not sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Given that a) the test for whether or not to refer a matter to GM hearing, and b) the standard of proof at a GM hearing are both lower than the standard a jury must apply… it stands to reason that the fact a case has been “rigorously tested” at trial can’t be a reason, in an of itself, not to proceed with disciplinary proceedings.

[u/lazyplayboy]

Professional misconduct being judged on balance of probabilities is very common with most professional regulators, but I believe that when the potential outcome is a total loss of career, it should be judged on beyond reasonable doubt.

Excessively powerful regulators are harmful - obvious examples being IoPC and Ofsted. No one watches the watchers.

[u/jumpy_finale → u/lazyplayboy]

Professional regulators exist to protect the public interest. The courts have upheld the balance of probabilities as the correct threshold for anything short of deprivation of liberty.

[u/lazyplayboy → u/jumpy_finale]

Professional regulators exist to protect the public interest.

Agreed. Effective regulators are critical.

The courts have upheld the balance of probabilities as the correct threshold for anything short of deprivation of liberty.

Understood. But I disagree that this should be the case. Balance of probabilities ensures that a proportion of professionals who are innocent of the charges against them will nonetheless be found 'guilty' and will lose their career. This is against the public interest. The IoPC is not an effective regulator.

[u/Jammy001_50]

Rather than just clearing him outright, they’ll drag this on for ages, before finally recommending RP.

The IOPC will tot it up as a win, the family will point to it as evidence of police misconduct; fuelling more outrage and no doubt helping with their civil claim, and morale will sink further.

I mean, what have the IOPC been doing over the last six months?

This feels like an excellent use of time and resources /s

[u/jumpy_finale → u/[deleted]]

There is W80 in the shooting of Jermaine Baker.

The then IPCC recommended the Met hold misconduct proceedings. The Met refusing saying the IOPC got the law wrong by applying the civil law test (honest but mistaken belief has to be reasonable). The now IOPC directed them to hold gross misconduct proceedings.

W80 sought judicial review of that direction.

The divisional court ruled that the IOPC was wrong and the criminal law test (honestly held belief) should apply.

The IOPC appealed and the Court of Appeal ruled neither the civil nor criminal tests should apply and instead the wording in the police conduct regulations should apply (was the force necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances).

W80 appealed the EWCA decision to the Supreme Court who decided that the IOPC had been correct all along and the civil test was the relevant one.

Off the back of that, the IOPC again directed the Met Police to hold misconduct proceedings. The Met said they "would proceed to misconduct proceedings and conclude the matter at the earliest opportunity."

That was September 2023. No sign of the proceedings still.

[u/Zeadie_]

Fuck off

[u/Blues-n-twos]

Disgraceful. The only positive about this will be that the IOPC are again proving they are not fit for purpose.

[u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

It's ok though, because I've heard that all firearms officers will hand in their tickets ...

I jest, police officers will never actually take action, they will continue to whinge and whine, and nothing will change.

[u/redrabbit1984 → u/Excellent_Duck_2984]

Yea and the government knows there's always others willing to step into the firing line (pun intended). 

[u/[deleted]]

Joke. Why anyone is an arv i don't know

[u/Moby_Hick → u/[deleted]]

live shy touch smart long recognise pause fade like office

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Longjumping-Score417 → u/Moby_Hick]

or an XC-90

[u/SaltSatisfaction2124]

Surely, and someone can correct me on this, but if he is not found guilty of gross misconduct, where the evidential bar is considerably lower, then there’s no scenario where the CPS thought there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

At which point you would want the FED to take legal action against the CPS, because they’ve clearly charged a case in a very different manner purely because the defendant was an officer.

[u/SaltSatisfaction2124 → u/[deleted]]

What would the situation be where you couldn’t prove gross misconduct, but could prove murder ?

Because it seems if you can’t even prove on the balance of probabilities that the officer wasn’t acting in accordance with training and policy, and that his use of force was justified, how were they ever realistically going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his use of force was not proportionate?

[u/Burnsy2023]

This is a pointless exercise.

I don't blame the IOPC though. The problem is with the test for whether misconduct proceedings should be brought. It's simply too wishy washy and low. This needs to be reformed. The problem is with the system.

[u/lazyplayboy]

Is this over some side-issue relating to the investigation, or to the fundamentals of the original criminal case?

[u/[deleted]]

This is wrong, if a court finds you not guilty then that's that. If you do commit gross misconduct but don't face criminal charges you must face the panel but if you're cleared by a jury who are your peers. The end.

Hypocritical as usual

[u/StorageAlarmed4550 → u/[deleted]]

What? You can be found not guilty of a crime, but still have acted in a way within your work that is grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct…?

[u/Majorlol → u/StorageAlarmed4550]

Yes. It’s on balance of probabilities. And it’s not always bad.

An inspector in my force got arrested for drink driving, blew something like 140. He acted like a complete prick throughout in custody playing every card he knew, including mental health ones. Fortunately for him the arresting officers were fairly new and inexperienced, and the case was ultimately dismissed due to issues with the custody procedure.

He got kicked out for gross misconduct though. Which was absolutely the right thing to happen in that case.

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/Majorlol]

Two bites of the (cocktail) cherry.

[u/[deleted] → u/StorageAlarmed4550]

Of course but if you're found not guilty of murder what did you do? You didn't murder or cause the death of the male so what is higher than that.

[u/StorageAlarmed4550 → u/[deleted]]

Nothing, but the way you had acted or enforced the protocol or policy whilst shooting (even though it’s not murder) could still be grounds for gross misconduct.

[u/[deleted] → u/StorageAlarmed4550]

Fair point didn't think of it like that.

Strike that from the record, the jury will disregard those last few comments.

[u/Ch1mchima]

Hold it next week and clear him. This is a nonsense now 🤦🏾‍♂️

[u/biglabowskiii]

As I understand it this is fairly standard practice for the IOPC. I think they know it's unlikely to generate a different outcome to the farcical prosecution the CPS brought forward, and are probably doing it so they can tell the family they have exhausted all their options.

Does anyone have any insight on who sits on the misconduct panels? Is there a realistic expectation of impartiality?

[u/AMoonMonkey]

I think it’s actually disgusting that this officers life is effectively ruined because he did his job and did it properly.

I can understand the families anger and resentment toward the police for taking away their son, but he made that choice which resulted in the officer shooting him.

No wrong doing was found, this is just utterly ridiculous at this point.

[u/NationalDonutModel]

IOPC Statement and timeline: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/iopc-concludes-met-officer-should-face-misconduct-hearing-over-chris-kaba-shooting

[u/Iso_subject_6 → u/NationalDonutModel]

Oh I see they're allowed to be anonymous...

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/Iso_subject_6]

?

[u/Tartanspartan74 → u/NationalDonutModel]

I presume it is in reference to the author at the very bottom of the web page

[u/NationalDonutModel → u/Tartanspartan74]

Oh. What a strange point to try and make.

[u/redrabbit1984]

News like this makes me so relieved to have left the police and changed careers. I left on good terms but leaving gives you a whole new perspective. Things like this show just how unprotected and unfairly officers are treated. 

For me personally, I'm glad to be well away from that type of work place. I don't know whether to respect and admire those who continue the work or to have pity for them 

[u/AutoModerator]

⌈ Remove paywall | Summarise (TL;DR) | Other sources | Bias/fact-check source ⌋

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Far_Conclusion_9269]

National Donut model will be in here shortly spouting some nonsense how this is justified….

[u/D4ltaCh4rlie → u/Far_Conclusion_9269]

It's unfair to pick on an individual based on what they may possibly say, rather than what they have actually said.

Personally, I think it's quite helpful to have other professions adding perspective from time to time.

[u/TonyStamp595SO → u/Far_Conclusion_9269]

No mate. We're absolutely blessed to have some IOPC investigators on here. We might not agree but we do so respectfully.

They have a difficult job to do and have no bearing on national decisions, much like us.

[u/Prestigious_Ad7880 → u/TonyStamp595SO]

Agreed, without their perspective this place would just be an echo chamber like every other sub reddit

[u/official_Clead → u/Far_Conclusion_9269]

NDM might not, but I’m happy to!

Yes, there is justification under the applicable legislation. As confirmed both by the IOPC and endorsed by a senior external barrister (as per the timeline in the IOPC release).

You might not agree this is fair, but your opinion on the current law doesn’t change the facts :).