Thank you.
I had a question relating to the unfortunate circumstances in which citizens are killed by the police. It's a three-part question.
I'm just trying to understand what is implied here when it says “Nothing in the section justifies...the intentional...causing of death”. Does that leave the matter of prosecution discretionary in cases where a police officer causes the death of a civilian with his firearm? That would be question number one. I mean, what happens? Nothing in this section justifies the intentional causing of death, but does prosecution follow in these cases, or is it discretionary, and to what degree should it be discretionary?
The second question I have, and this relates to paragraph 25.1(8)(c), is whether the belief that a police officer's reaction was reasonable and proportional in the circumstances constitutes a defence or implies that it creates a defence in these unfortunate circumstances.
Third, relating to the public reporting requirements in sections 25.2, 25.3, and 25.4, what obligations by the police to report to the public and to public authorities are implied in these cases? There have been widespread concerns that the police take far too long to report to the public in cases where police officers shoot a civilian in the course of duty.
Let me make it perfectly clear to members that I make no presumption of guilt in the current cases that are discussed in the press. I have a strong disposition to support the police in these unfortunate cases. I have a strong understanding that they have to make second-by-second life choices here. I'm not trying to prejudge any of the investigations that are currently under way. I'm simply trying to understand what sense is implied by this section of the code in these cases where police officers kill a civilian in the line of duty.