Not possible to conclude that action would have altered the outcome, says QC
No one could have predicted the 'appalling and drastic' action which resulted in the death of optometrist Giles Van Colle, London's High Court has been told.
Lawyers for the Hertfordshire Chief Constable Frank Whiteley told Judge Wakerley at the hearing - in which Van Colle's parents are suing the police for damages - that the practitioner probably would have been killed no matter what action was taken.
However, they admitted that his tragic death might have been avoided if the officer in charge of the theft inquiry had responded to threats made against the optometrist and another witness.
Van Colle was shot three times near his Mill Hill practice, GVC Opticians, days before his former employee Daniel Brougham was due to stand trial accused of theft and deception.
His father, Irwin, a Conservative councillor in Brent, and mother Corinne are suing the police in a landmark claim alleging they failed to protect and breached his right to life and right to family life under the Human Rights Act.
However, Edward Faulks, QC for the police, told the court: 'It is not possible to conclude that any action by the officer would have altered the eventual tragic outcome.' He said it was clear that Brougham - later convicted of murder, although it was not proved he actually fired the shots that killed Van Colle - was capable of getting others to act on his behalf.
He said the murder might well have still taken place even if Brougham had been taken into custody in the light of the threats against witnesses.
The detective at the centre of the case, David Ridley, who still works as a sergeant in the same Hertfordshire force, agreed he had not considered providing protection for Giles.
'It is something I deeply regret,' he told the judge.
The hearing ended this week and a written judgement is expected at a later date.