A police watchdog has complained to Ofcom over an episode of Panorama about the shooting of Chris Kaba.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) went to the broadcasting watchdog after its request for a public apology from the went unmet, after the programme initially aired without including the IOPC’s statement in response to claims made by its own former regional director Sal Naseem.
A spokeswoman said the corporation’s own Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) ruling had judged the complaint to be “resolved” after it had been accepted as an oversight not to include the IOPC’s point of view; the iPlayer version and online article were quickly amended.
Mr Kaba was shot dead after he tried to ram his way out of a police vehicle stop in south London in September 2022.
Sgt Martyn Blake, an officer in the specialist firearms unit MO19, was found not guilty of murder in October last year, prompting protests from the Kaba family.
Speaking after the verdict at the Old Bailey, Mr Kaba’s family said it was “painful proof that our lives are not valued by the system”.
Mr Naseem told Panorama that in his opinion, he had not been convinced that Mr Kaba presented a sufficient danger to justify being shot.
He suggested that the murder investigation into Mr Blake was launched amid pressure over potential unrest, which is denied by the IOPC.
The IOPC complained that the programme did not make clear that Mr Naseem no longer works for the watchdog, and that it was not given the proper right to reply to the claims over why the investigation was launched.
In the programme, Mr Naseem said that when the IOPC launched its homicide investigation four days after the shooting, “It was fed back to us… that if we hadn’t done it at that time then it’s likely there would have been a level of disorder.”
The IOPC’s statement denying this was added to the iPlayer version of the Panorama episode and online news stories.
The statement read: “The decisions to criminally investigate Sergeant Blake, and then refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), followed careful consideration of a significant amount of evidence gathered during our independent investigation and by applying the relevant legal tests which govern our work.”
According to the complaint unit’s judgement, Panorama should have provided the IOPC with specific information about the claims to be made about it, and therefore found an element of unfairness to the IOPC.
However it noted the programme makers had taken subsequent action to include the organisation’s right to reply in the iPlayer version and related online article, which was deemed “sufficient to resolve this aspect of the complaint.”
But the IOPC said on Thursday it had complained to Ofcom because it was “hugely dissatisfied that, despite admitting these two breaches of its own guidelines, the has steadfastly refused to apologise publicly despite the IOPC providing evidence to show the serious reputational damage caused to the organisation as a result of the programme.
“In particular, the suggestion within that programme, that the IOPC was pressured to start a homicide investigation, was wrong and resulted in public criticism from a number of media organisations and individuals including concerns raised by the London Assembly and local councillors about the IOPC’s independence and motivations.
“Had we been aware this would be suggested, we would have strongly refuted it.”
Mr Naseem said in the Panorama that he fully accepted the jury’s verdict, but stood by the IOPC’s decision to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
