Officers must be separated after a death or serious injury incident, according to new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) guidance.
The proposals have been criticised by the Police Federation of England and Wales, which claims the move is perceived by many as an inference of guilt.
The IPCC draft document said it had to keep open the possibility of bringing prosecutions against armed officers and produced guidance that said police should not be allowed to confer before, during or after making their statements about a shooting.
Bedfordshire Police Federation chairman Jim Mallen has echoed the concerns of the national Federation, saying: “By separating officers and not allowing them to speak to each other infers guilt.
“Our officers know the split-second decisions they make in situations where someone is killed or seriously injured are scrutinised and they work on a daily basis with that knowledge and burden.
“But what is effectively being said here is that they start off as suspects, not as witnesses. This will do nothing to enhance trust in the system among these officers. They need to be treated fairly.
“If this is backed by the Home Secretary it is going to make it harder for officers to volunteer for armed duties.”
The issue of conferring among officers came under the spotlight following the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan in 2011. A jury later concluded he was lawfully killed by police.
In the Court of Appeal’s observations in its judgment in the case of Duggan and Delezuch, Lord Justice Richards outlined that “the separation of officers is an exceptional measure and that the normal position is that separation will not be required”. Instead, he considered the supervision of officers in the post-incident suite provides a reasonable safeguard against collusion.
The IPCC’s original plans called for the officers to give a full account after a serious incident before going off duty, instead of having 48 hours, which police said was necessary to recover from any trauma.
Representations made by PFEW on this issue have been listened to.
Che Donald, firearms lead for PFEW, said: “Expecting officers to provide high level descriptive statements while suffering the effects of trauma and shock is unrealistic, which is why this should be provided after an initial account and a period of rest.”
He added: “Trust in the guidance by those at the forefront of these incidents - our members - is key to ensuring a timely, fair resolution for all those involved. In its current form it’s difficult to see the existence of that trust.”
