The Police Ombudsman has said that police officers were justified in firing shots at a man who pointed a gun at them following an armed robbery in north Belfast on Christmas Eve 2003.
The shots were fired as police were trying to apprehend a number of men in connection with the robbery of a shop on the Oldpark Road.
The Police Ombudsman investigates all discharges of firearms by police in Northern Ireland. During their investigation, Police Ombudsman investigators secured statements from the officers involved in the incident, spoke to civilian witnesses and analysed police radio transmissions.
Based on this evidence, they established that by within 15 minutes of the robbery, police had located a car suspected of having been used by the robbers. It was found parked in a street close to the junction of the Crumlin and Ligoniel roads at around 8am.
As police carried out searches in the area, two men were seen climbing over a wall and entering an area of waste ground enclosed by houses, walls and an advertising hoarding.
Officer fell off advertising hoarding after man pointed gun at him.
One of the men climbed on top of the advertising hoarding. As officers followed him, the man kicked out striking one officer on the head and hands. He then pulled a gun from under his top and pointed it at the officer. The officer dived backwards and fell off the hoarding as the man proceeded to cock the weapon and point it at other officers who had gathered on the ground below.
Another officer, who had also climbed onto the hoarding, shouted a warning before firing a shot which struck a wall behind the suspect. The officer later told Police Ombudsman investigators that it had been a warning shot intended to disorientate the man.
A second shot was fired by an officer on the ground. He told investigators he had aimed at the man, believing that he had fired a shot. The shot missed its target.
The suspect then cocked his weapon a second time and placed it against his temple, but officers noticed that the gun did not eject a shell when its slide was again pulled back. Considering this an indication that the gun was not real, officers reholstered their guns and two climbed the hoardings and edged their way towards the suspect.
Officer kicked in face and hit on head with gun.
As the officers got closer, the suspect held his gun by the barrel and struck one of them two or three times on the head. He also kicked the same officer in the face.
A struggle ensued which resulted in an officer and the suspect falling off the hoarding. The suspect was then arrested for armed robbery and possession of a firearm. A number of electricity and mobile phone cards and a bundle of £20 notes was found in his possession and on the ground around him.
The second male who had been seen leaving the property was subsequently located hiding beneath a plank of wood and other rubbish. Police found a number of telephone cards on his person and this man too was arrested for armed robbery.
The suspect who fell off the advertising hoarding was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital for treatment, and from there to Musgrave Street police station.
Police Ombudsman investigators subsequently interviewed the man who had been in possession of the gun. He said he had been drinking heavily, smoking cannabis and had taken a large number of diazepam tablets on the night before the incident. He said he had just arrived at the property visited by police, and stated that "everyone scattered all over the place." The next thing he could recall was waking up in hospital - he could not remember being on top of a hoarding, nor did he remember pointing a gun at police. He made no complaint about police actions during the incident.
Weapon was a starter pistol which had been converted to fire bullets but was not loaded at the time.
Subsequent forensic examination of the weapon in possession of the suspect revealed that it was a starter pistol which had been converted and was capable of firing bullets, although it was not loaded at the time of the incident.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Police Ombudsman, Mrs Nuala O'Loan, concluded that police had been justified both in firing directly at the suspect and in firing a warning shot.
In relation to the warning shot, Mrs O'Loan stated that the risk of injury being caused by a ricocheting bullet was minimal, given that the shot was discharged upwards, and the fact that there were no windows in the wall behind the suspect nor any buildings facing this wall.
However, Mrs O'Loan also pointed out that one of the dangers of discharging warning shots is that they may lead other officers to believe that police are under fire. "This was the case in this incident [and that] is why warning shots are only permitted in exceptional circumstances," she said.
She also commended police for the fact that they had re-holstered their guns once they had determined that the suspect's gun was not loaded.
The Police Ombudsman concluded that there was "no evidence to support any criminal offence or justify disciplinary proceedings against any officer."