Mark Duggan family agree settlement with Met over death
The 29-year-old shot was shot dead by police in London in 2011, sparking riots across England. …
Image copyright Jeff Moore The family of Mark Duggan, whose death sparked riots across England in August 2011, has settled a damages claim against the Met over his shooting.
Mr Duggan, 29, was killed by police who believed he was carrying a gun and posed a threat.
The High Court heard mediation had taken place between the two parties last month and terms had been agreed.
Mr Duggan’s family said the two sides agreed to “bring all proceedings… to a conclusion and move forward”.
In a statement, they added the two parties had “reached an agreed position without acceptance of liability on the part of the Metropolitan Police Service or its officers”.
The terms of the settlement will remain confidential at the request of the family.
The Met said neither party would make “any further comment about the terms of the settlement or the mediation”.
In 2014, an inquest jury found Mr Duggan was not holding a weapon when he was shot, but concluded he had been lawfully killed.
The jury heard Mr Duggan was shot after armed police intercepted a minicab he had been travelling in.
Officers had been following intelligence that indicated he was part of a gang and had arranged to collect a gun.
After the 29-year-old got out of the cab, one of the firearms officers – referred to as V53 – shot him twice, including once in the chest.
A pistol, wrapped in a sock, was later found on grassland behind railings 10-20ft (3-6m) from Mr Duggan’s body.
Jurors concluded Mr Duggan had dropped the gun when the minicab came to a stop, but decided that V53 had “honestly believed” he still had the weapon and acted lawfully in self-defence.
Mr Duggan’s family challenged the decision but were ruled against by the High Court and Court of Appeal, while the UK Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Approving the terms of the settlement at the latest High Court hearing, Mr Justice Stewart said the case had concerned the “legality” of the shooting.
He said had it gone to trial, the court would have examined whether Mr Duggan did have a gun and if V53 had a “reasonable belief that Mr Duggan was holding a gun when he was shot”.
About The Author
