Recommendation JB-15.1: Clarify separation of SIO and firearms commander roles
From Report into the Death of Jermaine Baker, published 5 July 2022.
Recommendation
There should be clearer guidance from the MPS, College of Policing and/or the NPCC on the separation of roles between the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and the Tactical and Strategic Firearms Commanders (TFC and SFC). The guidance should be clear that not only should the SIO and TFC/SFC be different individuals, but the importance of the separation of responsibilities under those roles should also be emphasised.
In brief (written by this site)
In October 2022, the College of Policing stated that it was drafting amendments to national armed policing guidance and training curriculum content to further clarify and emphasise the separation of command and investigation responsibilities (Andy Walker response, Oct 2022). The Metropolitan Police Service reported in the same month that an interim policy remained in force requiring strategic firearms commanders to come from its firearms command to guarantee separation from investigators (Metropolitan Police Service response, Oct 2022). The record holds no update since the College of Policing's response of October 2022 (Andy Walker response, Oct 2022).
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 2026. The record below is the sources' own words.
About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.
Government response
The MPS firearms command, MO19, commenced an internal review on this subject in July 2021, informed by evidence heard during the Inquiry hearings ongoing at that time. As part of that review, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (‘DAC’) Barbara Gray authorised an interim position requiring the SFC role in any given operation to be performed by an officer from MO19 itself, thereby guaranteeing separation between the SFC and the investigation team. This policy remains in force. The only exception to this rule relates to kidnap operations which might be conducted by a SFC from the Central Crime or Flying Squad Commands. There are clear reasons why the command structure in a kidnap firearms operation is subject to different considerations as set out in APP-AP. 1 6. In September 2021, Chief Inspector Tom Williams led the development of a formal MO19 recommendations paper, incorporating an assessment of practices in other U.K. police forces which included matters relevant to this recommendation. This paper was submitted to the Armed Policing Delivery Group on 23 February 2022. Having considered the paper, and in light of the national impact of the recommendations, a meeting was held on 8 September 2022 between MO19 and national armed policing colleagues to make progress on responding to the recommendations at a national level. It is understood that APP-AP and the National Police Firearms Training Curriculum (NPFTC) are to be updated to emphasise the need for both the role and the function of the SIO and TFC to be separated to ensure a consistent approach is taken in firearms operations across the country. This is a matter that is already addressed in MPS training. This includes learning from this Inquiry and the Chairman’s recommendations. If further input to MPS training is required following changes to APP-AP and the NPFTC this will of course be done.
The APP-AP currently requires that the functions of SFC or TFC must not be undertaken by the senior investigating officer (SIO) responsible for the investigation of the offence(s) for which the firearms operation is being conducted, or by any other person who is involved in the investigation. This requirement to separate firearms command and investigation roles has been clearly articulated in APP-AP and previous national guidance for several years. This guidance is reinforced during the training for commanders of armed operations. As a consequence of this recommendation, the College is drafting an amendment to APP-AP and NPFTC content which will further clarify and emphasise the requirement for separation, not only in respect of functions but also in terms of specific responsibilities.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: This is the College of Policing's letter of 27 October 2022, signed by Andy Walker, Head of Delivery, Uniformed Policing, College of Policing. The letter says it is "provided on behalf of the College and NPCC Armed Policing". The site files it under the College of Policing, whose words these are, including where the recommendation is addressed to the National Police Chiefs' Council.
Delivery
No statement on delivery from College of Policing has been found in the sources searched (last checked 2 October 2026). This is separate from the response above.
Responsible bodies
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Metropolitan Police Service
Response - College of Policing
Response