Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Father wins legal battle against police watchdog over son’s fatal shooting

Lewis Skelton died in hospital after being shot twice (Family Handout/PA)
Lewis Skelton died in hospital after being shot twice (Family Handout/PA)

The father of a man shot dead by police has won a High Court challenge against a watchdog’s decision not to re-investigate the actions of an armed officer.

Lewis Skelton, 31, was carrying an axe through Hull city centre when he was tasered four times and shot twice in the back by police on November 29 2016. He later died in hospital.

The former police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), investigated the shooting but took no further action against the Humberside Police officer who fired the fatal shots, known only as B50.

Lewis Skelton with his sister, Hayley (Family Handout/PA Media)
Lewis Skelton with his sister, Hayley (Family Handout/PA)

After an inquest found that Mr Skelton was unlawfully killed in 2021, the IPCC’s successor, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), decided not to re-investigate the case despite finding two flaws in the initial review.

Mr Skelton’s father, Glenn Skelton, challenged the finding at the High Court, with Mrs Justice Hull ruling on Friday that it should be quashed and a new decision be made.

Lewis Skelton, who had struggled with mental health problems, was reported to police through four 999 calls on the day of the shooting after being seen walking with an axe.

After being found by armed police, B50 and another officer – known only as Charlie – fired their Tasers, but this had no effect.

B50 then shot him twice in the back from close range with a pistol, with an IPCC investigation finding that “it was his honestly held belief that Mr Skelton posed a threat” to members of the public.

An inquest jury ruled in October 2021 that Mr Skelton was unlawfully killed, with the High Court rejecting a legal challenge against the decision by B50 last year.

The IOPC found two flaws in the IPCC’s initial review of the incident, relating to B50’s perception of Mr Skelton’s speed and his allegation that he was behaving in a threatening way.

But it deemed a new investigation was unnecessary as the flaws had no “material impact” on the original outcome, there was no new information that could have led to a different decision, and it was not in the public interest to re-order an investigation.

In a two-day hearing in Leeds in February this year, barristers for Glenn Skelton claimed that the IOPC had misapplied its policy and that its review “had been working on the basis that Mr Skelton posed a greater threat than was justified”, meaning some of its conclusions were “irrational or unreasonable” as a result.

While the IOPC opposed the challenge, Mrs Justice Hill said: “Given the direct relevance of both the flaws to the investigator’s analysis, it must follow that if the flaws had not occurred, the decisions taken in the investigation might have been different.”

She continued: “The defendant recognised that if the flaws had not been made, the investigator might have identified realistic alternative options for B50 other than the use of force.

“This effectively confirms that the flaws in the original investigation might have had an impact on the subsequent decisions.”

In a statement following the decision, Mr Skelton’s family said: “It is now seven-and-a-half years since Lewis was shot dead, there has still been no acceptance from Humberside Police, the officer, or the IOPC that anything really went wrong that day.

“All we have faced is constant denial and challenges at every stage and attempts to make us give up and go away. We have called for a proper investigation from the start – a chance for us to see justice for Lewis – and we’ve been ignored.

“The inquest jury, who sat and considered all the evidence, witnessed the officers giving evidence and being questioned, and viewed the CCTV footage, and concluded Lewis was unlawfully killed. Yet, what’s happened to the officers involved?

“We thank our legal team for continuing to fight for justice for Lewis. It has been hard for us as a family to keep doing this, to keep coming back to Court, but we will always do so to get justice for Lewis, and to ensure other families don’t suffer in the way we have.”

IOPC regional director Emily Barry said: “Lewis Skelton’s death was a tragedy that has had a profound impact on his family, friends and the wider community. Our thoughts remain with all those affected by what happened.

“The fatal police shooting of Mr Skelton was subject to a thorough investigation, which concluded in 2017, by our predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

“The investigation examined the circumstances of the incident. Throughout that investigation, the officer who fired the shots was treated as a witness rather than being under investigation for his conduct.

“The IPCC concluded the officer acted under the genuine belief it was necessary to prevent a threat to life.

“Following the inquest, which concluded four years later in 2021, Mr Skelton’s family asked us to reopen the investigation.

“In light of this request, and the jury’s verdict that Mr Skelton was unlawfully killed, we carried out a detailed review of both the IPCC investigation and the evidence heard during the inquest.

“The review identified some errors in the original IPCC investigation, however we did not believe these errors would have materially impacted on the outcome of the investigation. As a result, we did not consider that the threshold was met for us to reinvestigate.

“This decision not to reinvestigate was subject to a judicial review and we note today’s ruling (April 26). We will now carefully consider the judge’s comments before determining our next steps.

“We would once again like to extend our sympathies to all those affected by these tragic events.”

Humberside Police declined to comment.