Epicurus said:
But there can be no circumstances where a suspect under the full control of a police officer should be shot; is that correct?
If an armed officer shoots someone without a direct order from a senior officer they must act under the “guidelines” set out for the use of that fire arm, is that correct?
ANY use of force, by ANY person (police officer or otherwise) MUST be justified in law. IT can only be where there is an honest belief (which may turn out to be mistaken, but which must be honestly held at the time) that the use of force is "reasonable and necessary" in self-defence (or defence of another); prevention of crime or making of an arrest. It must be the minimum reuqired to achieve the lawful purpose.
If a suspect is under "full control" then use of any additional force could not be justified (e.g. cases where officers have beeen convicted of assault for, e.g., kicking a restrained prisoner who had earlier been fighting with them). The difficulty is with a suspected suicide bomber the slightest unknown (a hand which cannot be seen, or which is clenched) could still pose an immediate serious threat as it may contain a trigger mechanism.
Your second question implies that if a senior officer orders someone to shoot then they have a defence. That is mistaken. No police officer can be ordered to use force by any other officer, no matter how senior. It is a personal decision and it must be justified personally. "I was only following orders" is not a defence or an explanation. It is also why no senior officer will be directly charged with the use of force - it is not for them to justify (though they may have to answer lesser questions about briefing, training, policy etc.).
The guidelines on the use of firearms are simply that - guidelines, not law. Any deviation from guidelines would not be unlawful in itself but it may make the use of force more difficult to justify as being the minimum, reasonable, necessary amount needed.
As the lawfulness of the use of force will depend entirely on what was the honestly-held belief of the officers at the time there is no way any of us can judge whether or not it was justified yet. The IPCC will have interviewed them with that in mind. Although the circumstances will add something to the issue the vast majority will come from their accounts given in interview. The CPS will now be making a judgement on the basis of the evidence and their accounts. If they believe it is clear-cut that they have a valid defence then they will NOT recommend charges. If they have any doubt, they will. In that case a Court will hear all the evidence, will listen to the accounts given by the officers and will make a judgement on what they conclude WAS the honestly-held belief of the officers at the time.
