Dean Christian JOSEPH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 8 September 2014, I commenced an investigation into the death of Dean Christian JOSEPH, aged 40 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest earlier today.

The jury made a determination that this was a lawful killing, and added a narrative which I attach. The medical cause of death was:

1a shock and haemorrhage
1b gunshot wound to the back of the left chest.

Mr Joseph smashed a window and broke into the home of his former girlfriend. He took hostage with the aid of a knife. Police were called, and quickly afterwards firearms officers. There was a siege of approximately one and a half hours in total. Mr Joseph remained in the property and refused to release his hostage, while a local police officer tried to negotiate with him from the other side of the broken window.

When Mr Joseph moved the knife to his hostage’s throat, a firearms officer shot him.

1. Different officers had a different understanding of whether the armed containment was overt or covert.

2. As you will see from the narrative, the jury noted that there was no guidance from trained hostage negotiators en route, for the local officer who was first on scene. He was attempting to negotiate, though he was untrained as a hostage negotiator. Such guidance might or might not have led to the issuing of an armed challenge.

3. The hostage negotiator co-ordinator felt that it would be useful for the officer in her role to ask when first contacted, “Where does the incident commander want me to meet them?” This is a point which could be included in training. The fact of not asking that question did not appear to have a material impact in this case, but it might in another.

4. My recollection from the evidence I heard, is that the Armed Policing Policy only describes the maximum range of a TASER, not the effective range. The inclusion of the latter might be helpful.

5. The post incident management:

• allowed police officers writing their detailed accounts to confer about matters other than simply timings, and

• arranged for the display of the control log for them, which included matters outside the personal knowledge of some of the officers.

It may seem that this is not a matter for a prevention of future deaths report. However, it will always be the case that we, as a society, try to learn lessons from deaths such as Mr Joseph’s, and the learning of any lessons is hampered if the post incident procedure is sub optimal.

In this case, it was clear to me that the version of events given by police officers was doubted to a degree that would not otherwise have been the case, because of the post incident procedure.

• That means that public confidence in the police is eroded, when there may be no substantive reason for this.

• It also caused me to exclude some officers from court when other officers were giving evidence which, all other things being equal, I would much have preferred not to do, because it is generally less helpful in ensuring the most meaningful exploration of events.