A Merseyside criminal who shot dead a 20-year-old man in a case of mistaken identity should have been arrested months before the murder, the police watchdog has said. Mikey Rainsford was killed in his family home in Litherland after gang member James Foy opened fire through a window on 7 April 2020, in search of revenge against a rival group. The Independent Office for Police Conduct has upheld a complaint from Mr Rainsford's father Michael, who argued Foy should have been arrested by police previously after his DNA was found on a handgun. A Merseyside Police spokesman said the force was considering its response but repeated that it did not possess sufficient evidence to arrest Foy before the murder. The force knew a DNA profile matching Foy had been found on the magazine of a handgun seized during in a raid at a property in Bootle in November 2019. But detectives did not arrest Foy or seek charging advice from the Crown Prosecution Service until after Mr Rainsford's murder. The IOPC has now concluded there had been "no reason to justify" delaying then 18-year-old Foy's arrest. A case reviewer wrote that the decision "then allowed for a series of events that has resulted in the death of the complainant's son". One detective sergeant had a case to answer for misconduct, the watchdog said, but it recommended the officer be dealt with through a "reflective practice review process" rather than face a disciplinary hearing that could result in dismissal. The case reviewer said in a letter to Mr Rainsford, seen by the BBC, that: "Whilst it is my view that [the detective sergeant] could not have reasonably foreseen the murder occurring, it does not diminish the harm that this has caused to the complainant and his family." Foy was in fact convicted of possession of the firearm found in November by a jury at the same time he was convicted of the killing. The IOPC concluded that no new evidence had been found after the murder that had not already been available for months. Merseyside Police had told Mr Rainsford Snr and the IOPC that one reason they had not arrested Foy before April 2020 was because his DNA was on a removable part of the gun, which they argued could present difficulties in proving the possession charge. However, the IOPC case reviewer said: "It is my view that the presence of Mr Foy's DNA located on the magazine of a firearm would have been sufficient to provide reasonable grounds to suspect him of having had possession of the gun at the time." CPS lawyers had also said the location of the DNA was sufficient evidence to charge Foy. Mr Rainsford's father told the BBC the IOPC's findings were "still sinking in". He said: "It's been my campaign since two weeks after Michael was murdered, when I didn't get the very first answer to the first question to Merseyside Police, it's been a mission to get justice for Michael. "What happens next I don't know. Ultimately, what I want is accountability and transparency so no other family has to go through this." The victim was in the kitchen of his family home in Harrington Road, Litherland, gathering snacks to take to his girlfriend's house when two bullets were shot through a window at 23:10 BST. Mr Rainsford collapsed in the hallway as his family desperately called 999. It later emerged Foy and his brother Michael Foy had been seeking revenge after someone smashed a window at their family home in Rossini Street, Seaforth. The two men were both connected to a local gang known as the Linacre Young Guns, and believed members of rivals the Kirkstone Riot Squad were responsible. Detectives concluded Mr Rainsford, a college student with a passion for skateboarding and photography, had no links to any gangs and was not involved in organised crime in any form. It is believed the Foy brothers targeted the address as it was in an area considered the territory of the rival gang. Both brothers denied being involved but were convicted of murder and jailed. After his conviction, James Foy's barrister announced in court that his client wanted it to be known he was in fact the gunman. Mr Rainsford previously said: "You just can't move on and you try your best. You do limp on but life is never, ever the same." After the shooting, when police confirmed Foy was being held on suspicion of more than one set of offences, Mr Rainsford began to question why the earlier firearms charge had not been progressed sooner. A formal complaint followed, and Merseyside Police conducted its own internal investigation, which found there was not enough evidence to arrest Foy before the murder. However, Mr Rainsford appealed to the IOPC, which asked the force to reinvestigate elements of its response to the grieving father. This week the watchdog contacted Mr Rainsford to confirm it agreed with what he had been claiming for five years. Mr Rainsford said: "I'm very pleased that I'm right and I have always been right, it's very difficult to find the answers when one party holds all the cards." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside onBBC Soundsand follow BBC Merseyside onFacebook,X, andInstagram, and watch BBC North West Tonight onBBC iPlayer.
Killer 'should have been arrested' before murder
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Police Watchdog Criticizes Delayed Arrest of Gunman in Murder Case"
Bbc News
8.0
TruthLens AI Summary
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has determined that a Merseyside criminal, James Foy, who shot and killed 20-year-old Mikey Rainsford in a case of mistaken identity, should have been arrested months prior to the murder. Rainsford was fatally shot at his family home in Litherland on April 7, 2020, as Foy sought revenge against a rival gang. The IOPC upheld a complaint filed by Rainsford's father, Michael, who argued that Foy's DNA, which was found on a handgun, should have led to his arrest by the police. Despite the DNA evidence linking Foy to the weapon, Merseyside Police did not take action until after the tragic incident occurred, stating that they lacked sufficient evidence for an arrest at that time. The IOPC concluded that there was no justification for delaying Foy's arrest, suggesting that this inaction contributed to the circumstances leading to Rainsford's death.
The IOPC's findings indicated that the police had been aware of Foy's DNA being present on a removable part of the gun since a raid in November 2019 but failed to act accordingly. The police argued that the DNA's location on the magazine made it challenging to prove possession. However, the IOPC reviewer countered that the DNA evidence was adequate to suspect Foy of possessing the firearm. Following the murder, Foy was convicted not only of Rainsford's killing but also for possession of the firearm. Rainsford's father expressed his ongoing pursuit of justice, emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. The IOPC's review highlighted a case of misconduct against a detective sergeant involved in the investigation but recommended a reflective practice review rather than disciplinary action. This case has raised serious concerns about police procedures and the responsibility to act on available evidence to prevent violent crimes.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The content presents a serious issue regarding law enforcement and accountability in the wake of a tragic event. The implications of the report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) raise critical questions about police conduct and the systemic failures that led to the murder of Mikey Rainsford.
Accountability of Law Enforcement
This article highlights the failure of law enforcement to act on existing evidence against James Foy, who was later convicted of murder. The IOPC's findings suggest that there was a lack of initiative to arrest Foy prior to the murder, which raises concerns about police procedures and decision-making processes. The recommendation for a reflective practice review rather than a disciplinary hearing indicates a tendency to avoid severe repercussions for the officers involved, potentially leading to a perception of impunity within the police force.
Public Perception and Trust
The report is likely intended to inform the public about the shortcomings of the police, aiming to foster a dialogue about accountability and reform. It may evoke feelings of anger and frustration among community members, particularly those affected by violent crime. By highlighting the negligence that led to the tragedy, the article seeks to provoke a response from the public and policymakers regarding the need for changes in policing practices.
Potential Concealment of Broader Issues
While the report focuses on this specific case, it may also serve to divert attention from broader systemic issues within law enforcement, such as funding, training, and community relations. By concentrating on the individual failure of the police in this instance, it could overshadow ongoing discussions about larger reforms needed in the policing system.
Trustworthiness of the Report
The information appears credible due to the involvement of the IOPC, an independent body designed to oversee police conduct. However, the article's framing could influence how the public perceives the police's overall performance and the complexities of crime prevention. It reflects the ongoing struggle between law enforcement agencies and community trust.
Implications for Society
The findings could lead to increased scrutiny of police practices and potentially influence policy changes aimed at preventing similar tragedies in the future. It may also resonate with communities that feel underserved or inadequately protected by law enforcement. The conversation around police accountability is a pressing issue in contemporary society, and this report could act as a catalyst for reforms.
Community Support Dynamics
The article may resonate more with communities that have faced similar instances of violence or felt the impact of police inaction. It highlights an urgent need for reform, appealing to advocacy groups and families affected by crime, thereby strengthening their calls for justice and change.
Economic and Political Repercussions
While this specific case may not directly impact stock markets, it can influence public sentiment towards government spending on law enforcement, potentially affecting future budgets. Political leaders may feel pressured to address these concerns, especially in light of rising crime rates in certain areas.
Global Context and Relevance
The issues raised by this incident are part of a larger conversation about policing and accountability that resonates globally. In an era where social justice movements are gaining momentum, this report aligns with current events focusing on systemic reform in law enforcement.
Use of AI in Reporting
It is challenging to determine if AI was used in crafting the article, but the structured presentation of facts suggests a level of organization that could be influenced by automated systems. However, the emotional weight of the narrative likely requires human oversight to capture the nuances of the situation effectively.
This analysis illustrates that the article presents a significant concern regarding police accountability and the societal impacts of law enforcement failures. The credibility of the report is supported by its source, but it also invites critical discussion about systemic issues within policing.