IOPC finds no case to answer for West Midlands Police officer who fatally shot Sean Fitzgerald

A West Midlands Police (WMP) officer will not face gross misconduct proceedings over the fatal shooting of Sean Fitzgerald after the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) reviewed new evidence presented at the inquest into his death.

The IOPC has now concluded that the firearms officer has no case to answer for his actions on the evening of 4 January 2019 when Mr Fitzgerald, aged 31, was shot while exiting the back of a property in Burnaby Road, Coventry. Mr Fitzgerald was unarmed and holding a black mobile phone, which the officer who shot him said he believed was a gun.  

Our investigation ended in October 2023 when we decided not to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider criminal charges against the firearms officer. It was our opinion then, however, that a misconduct panel could find on the evidence that the officer did not have an honestly held belief that Mr Fitzgerald was holding a weapon, and therefore that he had a case to answer for gross misconduct.

An inquest which ended in May last year (2025) concluded that Mr Fitzgerald had been lawfully killed. We reviewed our decision-making on the basis of new evidence presented at the hearing. That included expert testimony and a digital reconstruction showing that the officer could have had a line of sight to the mobile phone, which experts said could have been mistaken for a gun, in Mr Fitzgerald’s hand immediately before the fatal shot was discharged.

IOPC Director Derrick Campbell said: “Our sympathies remain with the family of Sean Fitzgerald and all those affected by his death.

“This has been one of the most detailed, complex investigations we’ve carried out in recent years and involved a huge amount of evidence gathering and examination of sensitive intelligence.

“The determination over whether the officer should face disciplinary proceedings largely came down to a split-second decision in what was a dynamic, fast-moving, armed police operation.”

In light of new evidence presented to the inquest the IOPC’s view is that it would no longer be reasonable for a disciplinary panel to conclude that the phone held by Mr Fitzgerald was obscured from view until after the decision to shoot had been taken.

It is our view that there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the officer did not see the phone and the experts were unanimous in explaining how a black mobile phone could be mistaken for a gun in the circumstances. That takes into consideration the nature of the operation and what was known to the officer about that, the lighting conditions, the distance between them and the time pressure this put the officer under.
  
Mr Campell added: “Our conclusion was that the officer has no case to answer for gross misconduct, but I acknowledge Mr Fitzgerald’s family did not agree with our opinion. We have reached this position after extensive analysis and careful consideration of whether the evidence now meets the legal threshold we are required to apply.”  

Mr Campbell said the IOPC did not underestimate the impact a prolonged investigation, and legal processes, had on officers under investigation and in this case Mr Fitzgerald’s family and loved ones. He said: “We are extremely conscious of the time taken to reach the current position and we are sorry for any distress this has caused.”

He also emphasised that while it is relatively rare for firearms officers to discharge their weapons, and rarer still for someone to die as a result, there must be proper investigation and accountability when it does happen. 

The IOPC’s investigation also looked at the planning and implementation of the firearms operation and all of the officers who were directly involved in that were treated as witnesses throughout.