Marksman could be prosecuted over death of unarmed man after official inquiry rules his evidence was 'not to be accepted'

A police marksman who shot dead an unarmed man six times after he was stopped in a car faces possible prosecution after an official inquiry found he had "no lawful justification" for firing the shots.

Azelle Rodney was killed in Edgware, north London, in April 2005 after police forced the car he was travelling in to halt. He was hit by six bullets fired by an officer identified at the inquiry only as E7. The officer discharged eight shots in just over a second.

The report, by the retired high court judge Sir Christopher Holland, disputed E7's claim that he feared Rodney had picked up a gun, and said that he had no reason to fire the shots that killed the 24-year-old.

Officers had said they had intelligence that Rodney was part of a gang that was possibly armed with automatic weapons and thought to be en route to attack a Colombian drugs gang, with the intention of robbing them. Weapons were found in the car but the report found Rodney was not holding any of them.

The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, said the report was "a significant finding" for the force and he accepted Holland's recommendations.

In a statement issued immediately after the report was released, he said: "As a result of the finding that the firearms officer known to the inquiry as E7 had no lawful justification for killing Mr Rodney, the Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC] has informed the MPS [Metropolitan police service] it will refer this case to the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS]."

Hogan-Howe said the force could not comment further on the case in light of the possible prosecution. But he added: "The personal accountability of firearms officers is unparalleled."

While Hogan-Howe expressed sympathy to Rodney's family, the dead man's mother said she wanted a personal apology from the commissioner.

Susan Alexander said she did not seek to justify her son's actions on the day of the shooting, but that he should have been arrested, not "summarily killed".

"The police owe me an apology for the unlawful killing of my son, but they also owe me, and everyone who was in Hale Lane, Edgware, when police carried out the hard stop, an apology for the way tactics were decided that day. I await an apology from the commissioner himself."

Holland's conclusions are devastating for the Metropolitan police and its elite firearms unit. The report found:

• The officer's "accounts of what he saw are not to be accepted".

• E7's claim that he fired in fear that Rodney had picked up a gun and was about to fire was not credible, and "he could not rationally have believed that".

• It was not proportionate for the officer to "open fire with a lethal weapon".

• Even if E7 had held a mistaken belief that Rodney had an automatic weapon, "there would have been no basis for firing the fatal fifth to eight shots", which struck him in the head.

Holland said he did not find that E7 was deliberately lying, although the inquiry ruled the marksman should not have opened fire.

The report said Rodney did not have a gun in his hand. A deactivated weapon found on the back seat where he was sitting had not been picked up by him. Other weapons were later recovered from the car.

Evidence heard by the inquiry clashed with E7's account as to why he opened fire. Forensic and ballistic tests suggest several bullets hit Rodney as he was falling down, appearing to contradict the marksman's account that he continued to fire because the suspect remained upright and posed a threat.

E7's first shot lodged in a car door. A second shot, discharged 0.22 secs later, struck Rodney in the right arm. Holland said that from this point, the "threat is plainly now neutralised and shooting should be at an end".

However, 0.2 secs later shots three and four were fired. Another 0.2 secs afterwards, shots five and six, a "double tap" shot, struck Rodney in the right ear. "These could only result in fatality and did so", the report found.

Holland added that E7 "saw Azelle Rodney collapsing before he fired these shots and I do not accept his account that he fired these shots because he saw Azelle Rodney upright and apparently not affected by the earlier shots".

The report says E7 paused for 0.72 secs then fired "again well-aimed double tap shots into … a dead or dying man – and then after, the first and only pause. Obviously there is no justification."

E7's lawyers, who saw the findings a fortnight ago, dispute them. They have written to the inquiry saying the conclusions are irrational and they may seek a judicial review.

The report also criticises police for leaving Rodney's body at the scene for 16 hours. When the family visited the scene, his blood was still visible.

Holland concludes: "I have to find that there was no lawful justification for shooting Azelle Rodney so as to kill him."

New expert testimony highlights alleged failings in the Met's planning and tactics, which meant an earlier chance to arrest Rodney was missed.

The inquiry also heard from two firearms experts who concluded that the police operation that ended in Rodney's death was marred by errors, some of which made it "almost inevitable" that someone would be shot.

The firearms experts said police could have arrested Rodney and the others hours before the confrontation.

The inquiry was delayed for years because police did not want to reveal the intercept evidence that led them to believe he and others were planning an armed robbery. The authorities said an inquiry could not be held in public because some of the material was too sensitive, plunging the family into a seven-year battle to get a proper hearing.

Firearms officers were briefed by their bosses that the suspects were armed, possibly with automatic weapons able to fire 1,000 bullets a minute. Weapons were recovered from the vehicle, but no machine guns.

An original investigation by the IPCC decided there was no criminal case for police to answer.

The officer who shot Rodney had shot two suspects dead earlier in his career as an elite firearms officer, and wounded two others. At the inquiry he denied being "trigger happy", insisting he fired fearing an imminent threat to the life of himself and others.