(1) Nevertheless, the judge, Underhill J, was still very critical of the practice (at paras 19-20): “[Where] action by police officers had caused death or serious injury to members of the public…a close scrutiny of the detailed sequence of events is likely to be of crucial importance to the carrying out of a thorough investigation…[The] attendant risk of contamination and possibly collusion, is particularly high; and that risk is exacerbated if they collaborate in the production of their first accounts. Even if ultimately the inquiry is not seriously prejudiced, the possibility of collusion is bound to have an impact on the confidence of interested parties and the wider public in the effectiveness of the [IPCC’s] investigation; and the maintenance of public confidence in the complaints system is itself…an important part of its responsibilities….[The IPCC] made very similar observations…in its report on the shooting, again by officers of the Metropolitan Police, of Jean-Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station.” To this end, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has now said that firearms officers should not confer with each other before writing up their accounts of shootings. But it stopped short of banning the practice, saying officers should note any discussions that do take place (BBC News 2008b).