Giedrius Vasiljevas Inquest: Senior Coroner Rebukes “Shambolic” Firearms Operation After Father Fatally Shot by Police

Posted onDecember 1, 2025
Jag Bahra

Giedrius Vasiljevas, a 40-year-old Lithuanian father, was fatally shot by a Metropolitan Police (MPS) firearms officer on the doorstep of his home on 23 November 2023 after calling the police for help.

Giedrius was a loving family man who had struggled long-term with alcoholism and depression. His daughter Austeja told the Court:

“My dad, Giedrius, was a man full of love, humour, and kindness. He was generous, selfless, and always thinking of others before himself. His ability to make people feel loved, his light-hearted spirit, and his way of finding joy in everyday life are qualities I will always admire and carry with me.”

The Inquest Conclusion

The inquest concluded on Friday 28 November 2025 after four weeks of evidence.

The Senior Coroner had earlier determined that there was sufficient evidence for a conclusion of unlawful killing to be left to the jury in relation to the justification put forward for the firing of the fatal shot by a firearms officer, known in the inquest as MY78. Giedrius’s daughters, mother and ex-partner challenged MY78’s account through questions asked on their behalf.

While the jury concluded that Giedrius had been lawfully killed, they found failings in the firearms operation which possibly contributed to his death.

After the jury had delivered their conclusions Mr Graeme Irvine, Senior Coroner for East London, seriously criticised the armed operation. He called it “at times shambolic” and observed that there was a “critical breakdown in communication” between the different teams involved. He described the evidence he heard from the police to be “quite shocking”.

The Coroner was also critical of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The IOPC had failed to secure Ring doorbell footage which would have provided crucial evidence.

Concerns About the Metropolitan Police's Public Statement

Immediately following the conclusion of the inquest, the Metropolitan Police published a press release expressing that their thoughts were with the family. However, the same press release creates a misleading impression. It suggests that Giedrius had been armed with a prohibited and lethal firearm and posed a genuine risk to officers. In fact, the gun recovered outside the property was an unloaded CO2-powered ‘BB’ gun.

The same press release also suggested that the police had made efforts to convince Giedrius to leave the house to seek medical attention. However, it failed to explain that officers misled him into believing he was leaving to meet an ambulance, who would help him, and there was no mention of the presence of armed police.

The Events That Led to Giedrius’s Death

On 23 November 2023 at 07:59 pm, Giedrius called 999 in distress and intoxicated, following the breakdown of his relationship. He initially told the police he had a Aeretta and air rifle, and wanted to shoot himself, and then that he wanted to be shot. When asked more about the guns, he described the beretta as a ‘fake gun’, ‘not real’ and ‘airsoft’.
Officers in the armed response pod used video that Giedrius sent to them using the ‘GoodSAM’ app to view the guns. They established that the ‘Beretta’ appeared to match an image of a CO2 powered ‘BB’ gun.
Meanwhile, eight firearms officers formed a containment at the front of the house. However, no one passed on to them the information which suggested the ‘beretta’ was not a real gun. Robert Cummings, a former MPS firearms expert who gave expert evidence to the inquest, considered this to be a significant failing. The Coroner echoed those concerns.
Communications officers spoke with Giedrius on the phone. At the time of the incident, they had had no specialist training in negotiations. Giedrius was told that if he came out of the house without any weapons, an ambulance would be there to get him help. He agreed to this and thanked them, but at no point was it explained that in fact armed police were outside. No one told him that he would have to surrender himself to them, or how that surrender would work.
The Coroner was also highly critical of the language and tone a communications officer used. He stated: “There is a time and place for tough love but not when negotiating with emotionally or mentally disturbed person who is believed to be carrying loaded firearms”. He went on to declare that if the officer had been a nurse or doctor, he would have had no hesitation in referring her to her professional regulator as a result of her actions. He also criticised E171, the Tactical Firearms Commander (TFC) who was running the operation, for not intervening, commenting that a competent TFC would have stood her down.
Giedrius exited the house and stood in the front porch for around 55 seconds. Officer MY78, who was positioned behind a van 27 metres from the front door, shouted commands at him but failed to warn Giedrius that they were armed police.
Giedrius briefly returned into the house before re-emerging in the doorway. Within one second, officer MY78 shot at Giedrius, but the bullet did not hit. He shot again two seconds later, this time hitting Giedrius.
The phone call to the police was still connected at the time. Giedrius could be heard on the phone crying out in pain “I’ve been shot!”. He was pronounced dead at the scene at 9.30 pm.
The weapon recovered near the front door was indeed a CO2-powered BB gun. The magazine was also empty and inserted incorrectly, meaning it could not have been fired.

MY78’s Account

Officer MY78 claimed that when Giedrius emerged at the door for the second time he saw a black handgun in his left hand which he raised in the direction of himself and officer MY27. This caused him to fear there was an immediate risk to their lives.
Despite there being seven other officers surrounding the front of the house, not one of them had seen Giedrius pointing a gun. This was highly suspect given that they were there to provide firearms cover, meaning that they were focused on the very spot where Giedrius was stood in order to assess whether he was posing a threat.
MY27 wrote in his initial statement that he saw Giedrius fall to the ground after MY78 shot him. However, he then claimed he could not recall this.
Another officer, TP21, could be heard on the radio saying “he’s waving something orange”. Giedrius was found to have a cigarette he had been smoking in his right hand. TP21 accepted he had seen Giedrius waving something orange just before he had been shot.
Expert analysis of the video footage, carried out by Forensic Architecture on behalf of our clients, confirmed it was not possible to say whether Giedrius had anything in his hands (other than a cigarette in his right hand) during the crucial moments.
In light of these discrepancies, we successfully argued on behalf of our clients that a conclusion of unlawful killing should be left to be considered the jury, on the basis that MY78’s actions could meet the legal test for unlawful killing based on murder, applying the balance of probabilities.

Family's Statement

Giedrius’s daughter Austeja said:

“We have always maintained that my dad never meant anyone any harm on the night he was killed. His actions were simply a cry for help. He co-operated with what the police wanted him to do and thanked them, but he was tricked into thinking they would be getting him help. MY78’s evidence does not add up and we find it deeply suspicious no other officer could back up his account, and some contradicted him completely. We struggle to see how my dad’s death could be considered lawful, but we agree with the Coroner’s comments that the evidence given by many of the police was “shocking”, and we think the Metropolitan Police still have serious questions to answer.

We are particularly upset that the Metropolitan Police are now giving the public the misleading impression that my dad was a dangerous criminal who had a lethal prohibited firearm, when in fact all he had were 2 unloaded air guns.”

Saunders Law Comment

Jag Bahra, a senior associate solicitor from Saunders Law who represented the family, commented:

“MY78 was emphatic that he saw Giedrius point a gun in his direction causing him to fear for his life. However, not a single other officer said they saw a gun. Despite all seemingly having eyes on the exact spot that Giedrius was stood just prior to being shot and killed, many claimed to have witnessed what happened before the shooting and afterwards but not the critical moment. It was effectively a wall of silence.

The family have also been impeded in their pursuit for the truth thanks to Ring doorbell footage not being obtained by the IOPC, low-quality bodyworn video evidence, and incredibly, some of the firearms officers having no footage at all of what happened when MY78 killed Giedrius.

The operation was botched in a number of respects. The Metropolitan Police should be taking the Coroner’s comments at the end of the inquest very seriously indeed. Expert evidence was clear that the use of a trained specialist negotiator could have resulted in a different outcome in this case. Yet if the evidence given by the police at this inquest is to be believed, negotiators are very rarely used. We will continue to push for meaningful changes to the way these operations are run. No family should have to suffer what my clients have been through.”

Giedrius’s daughters, mother and ex-partner were represented by Jag Bahra, Emily Hayman and Cyrilia Knight of Saunders Law, along with Una Morris of Garden Court Chambers and Sophie Walker of One Pump Court Chambers.