The Chief Constable asked the Police Ombudsman to investigate the circumstances in which a police officer discharged a firearm in Newry on 6 April 2003. This was in line with normal procedure, whereby all incidents during which shots are fired by police officers are referred to the Police Ombudsman for investigation.

The shot was aimed at the driver of a Toyota MR2 sports car which had, at different times that evening, struck three police officers who were trying to apprehend its occupants.

When interviewed by Police Ombudsman investigators, the officer who fired the shot (Officer A) said he did so because the life of a colleague  (Officer B) was in danger. Officer B was at the time lying on his back in front of the vehicle, having previously been struck by it.

The incident happened shortly after 3.30am on 6 April 2003 in the Sugar Island area of Newry.

A subsequent forensic analysis carried out on behalf of the Police Ombudsman established that the shot had struck the driver's side door of the car, travelled along a side impact bar, before exiting the door and striking the inside of the door pillar. There was no evidence to suggest that anyone had been struck or injured by the shot.

The circumstances leading up to the weapon discharge had begun about an hour and a half earlier when the Toyota car had overtaken a police patrol and travelled on the wrong side of the road through a red light.

The same patrol spotted the car again at 2am, but when officers got out of their vehicle and approached it took off at speed, striking an officer on the left hand as he jumped out of its way.

Details of the car were relayed to patrols via police radio, and it was next spotted by a different police patrol stopped at traffic lights at Sugar Island, shortly after 3.30am.

The two members of the police patrol (Officers A and B) told investigators that when they approached on foot the MR2 reversed into the vehicle behind it. It then moved forward, striking Officer A, who was making his way to the driver’s side door of the car to speak to the driver.

This impact forced Officer A onto the bonnet of the car, and he recalled grabbing hold of a windscreen wiper to try to avoid sliding off and becoming crushed between the MR2 and the car in front.

At this point Officer B, who was standing in front of the suspect car, drew his police issue revolver and pointed it at the driver of the car, shouting: "Stop! Stop! Police!".

He stated that the passenger side door of the car then opened and he walked towards it, with his gun still in his hand, and shouted across to the driver: "Stop, stop. Stop now." He recalled that the car then reversed quickly and Officer A fell off the bonnet, while Officer B was knocked to the ground by the open passenger door. The front seat passenger at this point jumped out of the car.

When the car came to a stop it was pointing directly at Officer B, with its engine revving. Constable A got to his feet and drew his revolver, pointing it at the driver and shouting: "Stop, stop." The driver appeared to pay no heed and began to drive towards Officer B.

Officer A told investigators that he believed the life of his colleague was in danger, and so fired one shot directly at the driver, who was the only person in the car at the time. The shot missed its target, and the car reversed away, striking a traffic sign before driving off at speed along Basin Walk. It was later found abandoned in the car park of a hotel at Carrickarnon in Co. Louth.

Despite extensive police enquiries the driver of the MR2 was not located. However, several months after the incident he handed himself into Banbridge Police Station where he was arrested and subsequently charged with various matters. He was subsequently convicted of a number of offences and sent to prison.

The passenger who jumped out of the car was apprehended at the scene and the relevant police authorities were informed about the incident. The scene was cordoned off, and an ambulance took the two officers and the detained person to hospital where they were treated for cuts and bruising.

In a statement supplied to the Police Ombudsman's Office, Officer A said the disregard for the safety of others shown by the driver of the MR2 car led him to believe that his colleague's life was in danger. When the car moved towards Officer B he decided to fire directly at the driver. He had a clear view, and was confident that the positioning of Officer B would not place him in the line of fire. In addition, he was unaware of anyone else in the area and did not view either ricochet or crossfire to be a problem.

He also stated that he believed the shot had missed the driver as the car had reversed away from him. He said the shot had been controlled and aimed, but he thought the driver might not have heard his warning due to the noise of the car’s engine as it revved highly.

Officer A stated, however, that the driver would have been aware that he was a police officer as the area was well lit and he was wearing full police uniform at the time.

During their investigation of the incident, Police Ombudsman investigators secured information from the following sources:

• Police notebooks, witness statements and interviews
• Other police documentation
• Forensic reports
• Other specialist support agencies, including a mapping specialist, a scene photographer and a crime scene investigator
• Civilian witness statements
• Tapes of police radio transmissions

A media appeal for witnesses was also issued, and investigators carried out house-to-house enquiries and sent letters to local addresses in a bid to identify potential witnesses. Posters were also sent to local nightclubs and local politicians were contacted.

In addition, the uniforms worn by the two officers were secured as evidence, although the police officers who bagged these for the Police Ombudsman's Office did not package them correctly, which minimised their evidential value to the Police Ombudsman's investigation.

The civilian passenger in the MR2 was also interviewed but he had not heard the shot being fired, nor any warning being shouted by police, although he believed he may have lost consciousness during the incident. Investigators also interviewed ambulance personnel and a number of civilian witnesses.  

During a search of the scene of the incident a shotgun cartridge was recovered. Police Ombudsman investigators established that this cartridge had been one of a number in possession of Officer A. This was the subject of a separate misconduct investigation by the Police Ombudsman's Office. This established that the officer was legally entitled to have been in possession of the shotgun cartridge. He had purchased a shotgun and other items, which included a number of loose shotgun cartridges, from a member of the public on the 5 April 2003. He had placed the loose cartridges in the jacket of his police uniform, where they had remained until the incident.

Disciplinary action was taken in respect of the officer who conceded that he had breached a number of force regulations by having the cartridges in his possession at the time of the incident.

Police Ombudsman investigators also examined the firearms training records of the officers involved in the incident. Although both officers had passed their training in the use of their police issue firearms, neither had undertaken annual retraining and reassessment as required by force guidelines.

Outcome of investigation

The Police Ombudsman, Mrs Nuala O'Loan, concluded that Officer A had been justified in using potentially lethal force to thwart a dangerous situation. The circumstances, she said, had left him with little option.

"All the available evidence suggests that the driver of the Toyota MR2 had little regard either for the life of his front seat passenger, those police officers present at the time, or indeed police involved in the earlier incident which resulted in another officer sustaining an injury," she said.

"Given the potentially serious consequences of either scenario, it is argued that the life threatening action taken by Officer A was proportionate to the life threatening situation that he was attempting to prevent."

Recommendations to PSNI as a result of the investigation

Recommendation One: The Police Ombudsman expressed concern that police were still failing to ensure that all officers received annual refresher firearms training, despite previous recommendations to that effect. She recommended that an audit of such training is conducted and urgent action taken to ensure it takes place in accordance with guidelines.

Recommendation Two: Mrs O'Loan also recommended that all police officers should be familiarised, through instruction and training, with the basic forensic considerations regarding the correct packaging of items such as clothing relating to incidents in which firearms have been discharged.

Recommendation Three: The Police Ombudsman recommended that police training should reinforce the need for officers give oral warnings prior to the discharge of their firearms.