Armed cop who shot Chris Kaba ‘intended to kill him’ despite ‘no threat’, court hears

The armed Met police officer who shot Chris Kaba in the head intended to kill him and neither he or his colleagues were in any danger at the time, a court heard today.

The trial of Martyn Blake, 40, has begun at the Old Bailey this afternoon.

Mr Kaba, 27, died when he was shot through the windscreen of the Audi that he was driving in Streatham Hill, south London on September 5, 2022.

He was shot after a police vehicle chase and later died in hospital.

The Metropolitan Police initially stated that a man was being followed by specialist firearms officers in Streatham at around 9.15pm on September 5.

Judge Mr Justice James Goss told the jury: “The central issue is the lawfulness of the defendant’s actions. You are the sole judges of that. You will decide what is and is not true and what is reliable evidence, and the conclusions you draw, on your assessment of all the evidence.”

Opening the case for the prosecution Tom Little KC said: “This case involves a decision by this defendant to shoot with an intention to kill.

“It was a decision taken to use lethal force with a firearm by a firearms officer in the Metropolitan Police. It was a decision to shoot which was taken when, we say, the unassailable evidence of what actually took place that night reveals that it was not reasonably justified or justifiable.

“For a firearms officer to shoot and kill it should, understandably, be a remedy of last resort. The body worn footage and footage from cameras on police vehicles, reveals, we say, that it was not necessary to shoot.

“The immediate risk to both the defendant and his fellow officers at the scene did not, we say, justify at the point when the trigger was pressed – firing a bullet into Chris Kaba’s head. That is why, we say, that this is a case of murder rather than the use of lawful self-defence or lawful defence of another by the defendant.

“The defendant did not know the man he shot. What he was thinking at the time only he knows. But you may want to consider in this case whether the requests made to Chris Kaba by the police that had not been obeyed by him caused the defendant to become angry, frustrated and annoyed.

“At the point at which the defendant shot Chris Kaba in the head the vehicle that Chris Kaba was in was not travelling towards the defendant but instead it had just reversed a short distance backwards striking the front of a police vehicle that was blocking it in. Chris Kaba’s previous attempt to escape by driving forwards had failed and now he had far less space to accelerate forwards.

“We say that on careful analysis nothing Chris Kaba did in the seconds before he was shot justified this defendant’s decision to shoot.

“There can be no doubt that the defendant intended to incapacitate and we say to kill Chris Kaba. He shot him once straight to the head. He was trained to use a firearm and if necessary to shoot knowing that almost inevitably death would follow and that is what he did.

“The defendant did so when Chris Kaba was sitting in the driver’s seat of an Audi motor vehicle with both of his hands on the steering wheel.

“Whilst Chris Kaba had tried to drive away from the police that night and had driven into a police vehicle in order to do so and then had reversed a short distance backwards it is not obvious that there was space or room for Chris Kaba to have escaped and driven away into the night and he certainly could not have done so instantaneously.

“Indeed when you look at the positions of the vehicles it is important to consider what would have been contemplated at the time.

“Even if the defendant had eventually managed to drive away he could have been followed by one of the police vehicles and a helicopter.

“There was, we say, no real or immediate threat to the life of anybody present at the scene and at the all-important point in time when the defendant fired that fatal shot.

“At the heart of this case therefore is the decision making of one man. The defendant. You will have to decide what, if any, the imminent and immediate risk was and to whom (if anyone) and what the defendant honestly believed about that and what was reasonably necessary for him to do as a result.

“You will also need, we suggest, to beware any attempt to provide an after the event justification for what happened and which was not part of the defendant’s belief at the time.

“Having considered all of the evidence we suggest that the real issue in this case is this was this a case of mistaken belief as to risk or, as we say, was this an unlawful decision to kill.

“In driving forwards towards the police vehicle that was blocking his immediate path there had been an element of danger, albeit that the speed was not particularly fast and none of the Authorised Firearms Officers were injured.

“Chris Kaba then only drove backwards a short distance before he was killed.

“When he reversed the police officers near to the side of the Audi were all able to step back or move to the side. Nobody was knocked down. Indeed some of the Police knew that is what he was doing because the reverse lights came on and he could not go any further forward.

“Yet just after the Audi became stationary this defendant decided to shoot Chris Kaba. He should not, we say, have done so.”

The trial at the Old Bailey continues.