Met Police boss Sir Mark Rowley claims the CPS treats police officers differently when deciding whether to press charges, putting “innocent officers through years of stress”

Met police chief Sir Mark Rowley claimed prosecutors were too eager to press charges against police officers accused of dangerous driving while pursuing suspects.

Speaking at the Police Exchange in central London, the Met’s police commissioner said the prosecution’s zeal was “dragging innocent officers through years of stress”.

Britain’s top police officer said the CPS had failed to “adhere to the same charging standards for police officers as it is for the public” when prosecuting officers for dangerous driving.

He claimed the “discouraging and unfair” oversight of the CPS and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was causing officers to become more reticent in pursuing suspects and discouraging them from doing their jobs.

The police chief said Britain was unique in investigating officers who “safely pursue criminals” and asked: “Why should we stop officers from pursuing criminals?”

Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley (pictured) claimed the CPS’s “unfair” oversight was putting “innocent officers through years of stress”

“I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere else in the world where police officers are being investigated for safely pursuing criminals,” Sir Mark said The Telegraph.

“It is my view that the IOPC and CPS are not adhering to the same charging standards for police officers as they are for the public and are putting innocent officers under stress for years,” he said.

His comments came after a jury acquitted Met police officer PC Edward Welch of causing death by dangerous driving after two people were killed when a car he was pursuing crashed in Penge, southeast London, in 2016.

The 23-year-old man driving the car hit a 10-year-old boy and his aunt as he fled police in a stolen Ford Focus.

Sir Mark also predicted yesterday that facial recognition technology will be as important as DNA in transforming criminal investigations.

Scotland Yard’s commissioner revealed officers used the technology to identify “unknown suspects” and said the results were “beyond my expectations”.

In an apparent reference to the arrest of fugitive terror suspect Daniel Khalife, Sir Mark said: “We have also recently shown that live facial recognition is extremely effective at filtering out wanted criminals from crowds.”

He also told think tank Policy Exchange: “The next step is more exciting: the retrospective use of facial recognition to identify unknown suspects from CCTV images shows enormous potential.”

“The results exceed my expectations and may change investigative work in the same way that DNA changed investigative work 30 years ago.”

Live facial recognition involves cameras scanning faces in a specific area and streaming images to a database of people police are looking for (stock image)

With live facial recognition, cameras scan faces in a specific area and stream images to a database of people police are looking for.

Now, after a crime, police are using retrospective facial recognition (RFT) to help officers figure out who the suspect is and whether their image matches other media in databases.

Yesterday, Katy Watts, a lawyer at campaign group Liberty, warned that “dystopian” RFT technology could mean “intrusive surveillance” for protesters or those caught on CCTV cameras.

At the event, which marked his first year in office, Sir Mark called for reforms to stop the police becoming mired in bureaucracy.

He also criticized regulators for pursuing criminal cases against some officers, but acknowledged there were still “hundreds” of police officers who should have been fired for misconduct.

The police chief told event host Sir Trevor Phillips that officers’ confidence in pursuing criminals would be undermined by possible prosecution if a suspect was killed or injured.

Tom Whiting, acting director-general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, called the comments “disappointing” and said the watchdog was guided by “legislation and evidence” when deciding cases.