Sal Naseem, the former lead investigator for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in the Chris Kaba shooting case, has spoken out for the first time since the trial concluded. In an exclusive interview with the BBC’s Panorama, Naseem, now affiliated with The Police Foundation, a policing think tank, defended his decision to charge Metropolitan Police Sgt Martyn Blake with murder despite the jury’s swift acquittal and subsequent criticism.
Chris Kaba, who was fatally shot during a police pursuit in South London, was linked to a vehicle involved in a shooting the night prior. The incident led to a high-profile case that stirred significant public and political interest. During the trial, Sgt Blake, a seasoned officer of a specialist firearms unit, argued that he had acted in self-defence, believing there was an imminent threat to his and his colleagues’ lives. The jury unanimously found him not guilty, delivering their verdict in just a few hours.
Naseem maintained that the decision to pursue murder charges was rooted in his belief that Kaba did not pose an imminent threat that justified lethal force. “This was a complex case, but my view on the proportionality of the response has not changed,” he said. However, Naseem acknowledged that external factors, including concerns about potential public disorder, played a role in the IOPC’s handling of the case. This revelation has fueled further debate over whether public and political pressure influenced the investigatory and prosecutorial decisions.
Criticism of the IOPC’s approach was not limited to the courtroom. Former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu publicly questioned the haste with which the case was classified as a homicide. “To announce a potential murder investigation so early in the process—it was remarkable and unusual,” Basu remarked. His comments echo the concerns of many in the policing community who believe the investigation was impacted by outside influence rather than being solely evidence-based.
The acquittal of Sgt Blake has left lingering questions about the balance between independent oversight and the pressures exerted by public and political discourse. For many, the case exemplifies the challenges faced by armed officers and the accountability processes that scrutinize split-second, life-or-death decisions.
Despite the court’s ruling, the case has intensified discussions about the IOPC’s protocols and how best to maintain public trust while ensuring that investigations remain impartial and grounded in factual evidence.
