Who? David Emery, general counsel, Independent Office for Police Conduct.

David Emery

Why is he in the news? Involved in a Supreme Court appeal brought by a Met police officer who fatally shot a man in 2015. The officer claimed the IOPC erred in applying the civil law test for self-defence in determining whether he had a case to answer on charges of gross misconduct. His appeal was dismissed.

Thoughts on the case: ‘The judgment will play an important part in ensuring accountability when police officers use force. The factual backdrop to the case was a fatal police shooting, but the principle that the civil law test (not the criminal law test) of self-defence applies in police disciplinary proceedings will apply to all uses of force by the police – not just firearms-related cases. Applying the civil law test will allow police disciplinary panels to consider use of force in the round – “in all the circumstances”. Where officers are mistaken as to the threat they were actually facing, the panel will be able to consider whether this mistake was a reasonable one to make. In many situations, the mistake will be reasonable, but wrestling with this issue provides an important opportunity for learning and for public safety considerations to be taken into account in factual findings and disciplinary sanction. As the Supreme Court put it, “citizens should not feel that unreasonable mistakes made by the police are left unchecked or that the police are not held accountable for such mistakes”.’

Dealing with the media: ‘This has been a really significant case for police accountability. Accordingly, I worked with our media team to issue news releases at key stages. We advised media prior to the earlier Court of Appeal hearing and, as a result, there was quite a lot of attention when our appeal was successful back in October 2020. More recently, I contributed a quote along with our acting director general in our release to accompany this Supreme Court ruling, with print stories in The Times and Guardian and coverage by other outlets.’

Why become a lawyer? ‘I was an argumentative child. My dad once said I’d argue with God if I got the opportunity. But in reality I think I became a lawyer because I’m interested in people, their stories and the complexities of the relationship between people, society and the state.  I liked the idea that the law helped to regulate these complexities.’

Career high: ‘Gently using my legal skills to persuade a grumpy US border guard not to misuse his power to arbitrarily and capriciously deny me and my family entry to the US. We had valid visas – honest!’

Career low: ‘Losing this case in the Divisional Court. We waived privilege in relation to the legal advice I’d given on the subject of which self-defence test should be applied and the court was not impressed.’

Topics