The westcountry inquest, where a coroner has granted anonymity to three firearms officers, has begun to hear their evidence from behind a screen.

The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary officers, referred to only as A, B and C, were present when a 20-year-old man, who had threatened them with what turned out to be an air rifle, was fatally shot in the chest in Falmouth last April.

When the inquest opened, West Cornwall Coroner Edward Carlyon said the officers would not be identified – a move vigorously opposed by the family of the dead man, Antony Kitts.

Jason Clark, news editor of the Western Morning News, said: “The coroner did not give his reasons, nor did he cite under which law he had made his ruling.”

Mr Clark added: “There may be perfectly valid reasons why the officers should not be named, but my worry is that so far we have not even been told (on or off the record) the reasons why anonymity is so important in this case.

“If this becomes the norm, then where do we draw the line in making our police forces accountable for their actions?”

After representations from the newspaper, the Coroner revealed that he had agreed to a ban – requested by the barrister representing the three officers – because of the fear of reprisals against the officers and their families.

Mr Carlyon said his prime concern was to establish the facts and the truthfulness of witnesses.

He said: “Although the counsel for the family vigorously resisted the application for anonymity, I am of the opinion that essentially the argument against granting anonymity must be that it is against the public interest.

“The desire of the family for open evidence and the desire of the Chief Constable and others for anonymity should not be allowed to cloud the fact that the issue has to be determined solely in the public interest.”

He stated that a High Court hearing in October 1999, dealing with a similar inquest at Bedford, had laid down the general principles of anonymity.

He said: “I accept that the fundamental principle at stake is that of open justice. Any departure from this principle must be a stringently regulated exception.

“Counsel for Constables A, B and C submits that the circumstances existing in the Bedford case are not dissimilar to those in the Kitts case.

“Constables A and B are members of an Armed Response Group which is a specialist group giving rise to a special need for care.

“Counsel for the Chief Constable made the further point that not only does identification of an officer as a member of such a group put that officer at general risk of reprisals from the criminal fraternity but also that the public identification of the officers in this case could be prejudicial to further firearms operations within the force and also have a bearing on the operational effectivness of the unit, causing difficulties in recruitment and retention of suitable officers.

“I largely accept this submission and consider that the danger of compromising the efficiency of the Tactical Firearms Unit has to be balanced against the need, as opposed to the desirability, of ‘open justice’.

The inquest is continuing and more information can be found by reading a message from Jason Clark on our Bulletin Board – click here

Do you have a story for us?
Ring the HoldTheFrontPage newsdesk on
01332 291111 x6022, or to e-mail us now – click here