Azelle Rodney inquiry: prosecutors to assess new evidence in police shooting A car is removed from the scene of Azelle Rodney's shooting by police in Edgware, north London. Photograph: Edmond Terakopian/PA Prosecutors are to examine new evidence unearthed by the official inquiry into the police shooting of Azelle Rodney, the Guardian has learned. Forensic and ballistic tests suggest several bullets hit Rodney as he was falling down, appearing to contradict the police marksman's account that he continued to fire because the suspect remained upright and posed a threat. Other evidence commissioned by the inquiry identifies alleged errors in decisions made by senior officers. Azelle Rodney was killed in Edgware, north London, in April 2005 after police forced a car he was travelling in to stop. The official inquiry into his death was delayed because police did not want to reveal the intercept evidence that led them to believe he and others were planning an armed robbery. The inquiry has commissioned a new ballistic report and expert evidence, which call into question the official explanation of why Rodney was shot six times. The officer who shot Rodney, known only as E7, said he opened fire without warning because the suspect made movements consistent with reaching for a gun. The officer told the inquiry he continued to fire because Rodney remained upright and showed no obvious effect from the shots. Tests commissioned by the inquiry say Rodney could not have been upright. The first shot to hit Rodney, which was in the arm, was not fatal. The next five bullet wounds were all determined to have had a "steeply downwards" trajectory, according to Anthony Miller, a ballistics expert who has worked for the Met's forensic firearms unit. Thus when the fatal bullets were fired Rodney was falling and then slumped horizontally as a result of earlier shots, and not upright, according to the opinion of experts commissioned by the inquiry. The second shot to strike him was in the back, the inquiry heard, the next two around the right ear, and the final two to the top of his head. In law, each shot has to be justified. Other new expert testimony commissioned by the inquiry highlights alleged failings in the Met's planning and tactics, which meant an earlier chance to arrest Rodney was missed. Oral evidence in the public inquiry finished this month, and the report from the chair, Sir Christopher Holland, is expected early next year. The authorities had claimed that an inquiry into the death could not be held in public because some of the material was too sensitive, plunging the family into a seven-year battle just to get a hearing. Firearms officers were briefed by their bosses that the suspects were armed, possibly with automatic weapons able to fire 1,000 bullets a minute. Weapons were recovered from the vehicle, but not a machine gun. A senior lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service is to examine the new material. It is much more questioning of the police than an original investigation into the shooting conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The CPS lawyer has experience in health and safety law, corporate negligence cases and prosecuting the police. One possibility is the Met being prosecuted for allowing armed suspects they deemed dangerous to travel for several miles across London when they could have been arrested much earlier. This would almost certainly be under health and safety legislation and be similar to the conviction the Met received for blunders in the Jean Charles de Menezes case. He was an innocent man mistaken by officers for a suicide bomber in July 2005, whom police pinned down and shot in the head. Rodney's family alleged at the inquiry that E7 was trigger-happy, based in part on his career history. He killed two suspects in a previous incident, and shot and injured two others. He has also shot and killed a dangerous dog. In his evidence, E7 said he had been commended in another incident for showing restraint and not firing when faced by a suspect who started to point a weapon at him. Informed sources believe that a murder prosecution of the firearms officer is unlikely. The law and its interpretation means the officer is unlikely to be successfully convicted just for having a mistaken perception that the suspect was about to open fire, as long as it cannot be disproved that he had an honestly held belief. E7 was in an unmarked car that pulled up alongside the VW Golf with Rodney sitting in the back seat. The officer opened fire six-hundredths of a second after the car he was in stopped, firing off eight shots in just over a second. Two missed Rodney. The dead man's family fought plans for an inquest to be held with secret evidence that would have been withheld from them and their lawyers. The inquiry resumes next month with closing arguments.