At around 7pm on October 27, 2001 a police patrol consisting of two Land Rovers noticed a red BMW Z3 sports car stopped at traffic lights on the Bell Steel Road, Poleglass, Belfast. The car matched the description of a vehicle that had previously been reported stolen.
The police stated that they stopped their vehicles, got out and approached the car. As they neared the vehicle it reversed out of the line of traffic and accelerated towards one of the officers. Seeing this, another officer fired a single shot, striking the car on the driver’s side door. The car, however, continued on its course, hitting the officer, who was thrown into the air. The stolen car then mounted an adjacent footpath and travelled over a grassed area before emerging onto the Pantridge Road. It then sped off towards the Poleglass roundabout.
The BMW was subsequently found abandoned and was recovered for forensic examination. The fragmented remains of the bullet were recovered from the driver’s side doorframe of the car.
Outcome of investigation:
The Police Ombudsman concluded that the officer who discharged the shot had been required to make instant decisions during a quickly-evolving incident in which the life of a colleague had been threatened.
The Ombudsman's report states: "The evidence uncovered during the investigation indicated that the officer who discharged his firearm did so in the belief that the failure to do so would result in the loss of life or serious injury to a colleague. Whilst it is accepted that the officer held this honest belief, his actions were potentially reckless and highly unlikely to meet the objective.
"The officer discharged his firearm at a driver, driving at speed and accelerating directly towards his colleague, who was only five to ten feet away. Even if his shot had connected with the target it would have been highly unlikely to have prevented the collision which occurred.
"It does not appear that the risk of discharge was considered as one officer was firing directly towards another and there must have been a real risk that he could have hit his colleague, either directly or by ricochet. There were other road users nearby also exposed to potential risk.
"Whilst it is accepted the officer felt this proportionate at the time, it would be the Police Ombudsman’s view that this was not proportionate as it would have been unlikely to achieve its objective and carried significant risks for others."
The report added, however: "The discharge did not conflict with force instructions in view of the officer's subjective belief and did not conflict with training currently delivered. It is the Police Ombudsman's view that these issues need to be more comprehensively covered in training and instructions to officers."
Recommendations to PSNI as a result of the Police Ombudsman’s investigation:
The Ombudsman stated that a review of police firearms and procedures had taken place in light of recommendations previously made by her office. "Some changes took place as a result, including the issuing of new instructions to the force on 2 July 2001. Following further correspondence the Chief Constable has ordered a further review of training and it is recommended that the issues raised in this report are considered within that review."
The Ombudsman also recommended that the force's instructions in relation to firing at moving vehicles should be further considered. "It is accepted that there may be situations where a discharge would be fully justified at a moving vehicle but they would be rare and this instruction is frequently used to justify situations such as that contained in this report."
The Ombudsman recommended that "an unequivocal message needs to be delivered to officers that they must consider the likely consequences and outcomes before firing their weapons."