Advanced Search

Decision to Charge

Once the Police have completed their investigations, they will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on how to proceed. We will then make a decision on whether a suspect should be charged, and what that charge should be.

Find out more about how we decide whether to charge a suspect

Find out more about private prosecutions

Prosecuting Special Crimes

Deaths in custody, allegations against the police, corporate manslaughter, medical manslaughter, serious public corruption, election offences, appeals to the House of Lords and extradition are just some of the types of cases dealt with by specialist Crown Prosecutors in the Special Crime Division.

Find out more about extradition

Find out more about how we prosecute bribery and corruption

Find out how we prosecute election offences

Find out more about how we deal with allegations against the police

Find out about our prosecution policy for deaths in custody

Find out about unduly lenient sentences

Home » News Centre » Press Releases » CPS decision in Henry (Harry) Stanley case

CPS decision in Henry (Harry) Stanley case

20/10/2005

The Crown Prosecution Service announced today it has advised Surrey Police that there is insufficient evidence to charge Chief Inspector Neil Sharman and Police Constable Kevin Fagan with any offence in relation to the fatal shooting of Henry (Harry) Stanley in a London street in September 1999.

In October 2004 an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. In line with the Attorney General's guidelines into deaths in custody, the CPS reviewed the case again. As part of this review the reviewing lawyer, a senior prosecutor, requested the re-examination of some of the evidence. This led to the discovery in January 2005 of significant forensic evidence - two bullet holes to the top left shoulder of the jacket that Mr Stanley was wearing when he was shot.

This forensic evidence appeared to indicate that Mr Stanley may have been shot as he began to turn towards the officers, in contradiction to the statements provided by them. On this basis, the officers were arrested by Surrey Police on suspicion of murder, gross negligence manslaughter, perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on 2 June this year.

In late June, following a request from the officers' defence team, the CPS and Surrey Police agreed to an extension of bail in order to allow the team to secure independent forensic evidence. This evidence was provided to the CPS in mid-September. The CPS considered this evidence and obtained the opinions of other forensic experts who confirmed that the evidence relating to the fatal shot could reasonably permit interpretations consistent with the officers' belief that they were acting in self defence.

The charges the CPS considered against Chief Inspector Sharman and PC Fagan were murder, gross negligence manslaughter, perjury, attempting to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.

The offence of murder requires proof of unlawful killing with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. In this case the officers say they acted in the honest belief that they were under imminent threat and that the force they used was proportionate to the threat they perceived.

For a prosecution to have a realistic prospect of conviction, it would be necessary to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not have such a belief or that the force used was excessive.

The CPS has concluded that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to rebut the officers' assertion that they were acting in self defence. We have also concluded that the threat which they believed they faced made the use of fatal force reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them.

The forensic evidence based on the bullet holes in Mr Stanley's jacket, which might have gone some way towards showing the officers may have lied in their detailed account, is now insufficiently persuasive.

The offence of gross negligence manslaughter requires proof that the officers owed Mr Stanley a duty of care and that it is more likely than not that they breached that duty in a way that was a substantial cause of death and in a way that was grossly negligent.

The CPS considered that it is arguable that the officers' haste and lack of planning led them to breach their duty of care to Mr Stanley and cause his death, but there is insufficient evidence to place before a jury to enable that jury to be sure the degree of negligence was gross. Gross negligence requires something beyond even serious mistakes and errors of judgement.

Perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice would rely on the prosecution proving that the officers had lied about what happened in this case. The forensic evidence referred to above precludes showing to a criminal standard that the officers' accounts were lies and that they intended to interfere with the course of justice.

The charge of misconduct in a public office was also considered but, in light of the conclusions above, there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

Mr Stanley's family and Constable Fagan and Chief Inspector Sharman have been notified of this decision and the reviewing lawyer is today meeting with Mr Stanley's family.

  1. CPS received a file from Surrey Police in June 2000. After a review of the evidence CPS advised there was insufficient evidence to bring any criminal charges against the police officers involved. (Press release available on request.)
  2. In March 2001 CPS considered the Stanley family's application for a judicial review of this decision in which they provided fresh evidence and confirmed we would review the case again.
  3. In December 2001 CPS advised there was insufficient evidence to bring any criminal charges against the police officers involved. (Press release available on request.)
  4. On 29 October 2004, following a second inquest into Mr Stanley's death, an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. CPS announced they would review the case again.
  5. In November 2004 CPS received the evidence and transcript from the second inquest.
  6. In January 2005 as part of the CPS review and the Surrey Police review of the investigation, two bullet holes were discovered in the jacket Mr Stanley had been wearing when he was shot.
  7. In March and May 2005 CPS sought independent Counsel's advice.
  8. In May 2005 at the High Court the inquest verdict of unlawful killing was quashed. CPS advised they would take account of the judgement as part of the review process. NB The burden of proof for an unlawful killing verdict at an inquest is not the same as that for a criminal trial. In brief, the criminal standard requires that a jury is 'sure' while the civil standard requires that it is 'probable'.
  9. On 2 June 2005 the officers were arrested by Surrey Police. In late June the officers' defence team was allowed more time in order to gather independent forensic evidence.
  10. On 26 August 2005 the officers' defence team supplied this independent evidence to the CPS and we referred this material to our own experts.
  11. CPS reviewed the evidence in this case again because of the way the evidence unfolded at the second inquest and because we are obliged to review cases again following an inquest verdict of unlawful killing. (See Attorney General's Guidelines into the Role of the CPS in Cases Arising from a Death in Custody at www.lslo.gov.uk.)
  12. All media enquiries to CPS Press Office on 020 7796 8102.