A police officer has received a Superintendent's Written Warning after drawing his police firearm during a confrontation with youths at a garage forecourt in Belfast.

An investigation by the Police Ombudsman's Office found that the officer had failed to adequately consider other ways of resolving the situation before resorting to the use of his personal protection weapon.

The incident happened in the early hours of the morning on 6 August 2005 just after the officer had completed a shift on duty.

He was wearing plain clothes and was on his way home when he called into a service station. Three youths - an 18-year-old and two 16-year-olds - were at the serving hatch, and an altercation between the officer and the youths took place.

CCTV footage suggests that the altercation was initiated by one of the youths. They had been drinking but insisted they were not drunk. The footage shows two of the youths acting in an apparently aggressive manner, while the officer was not.

After the initial confrontation, the officer went to his car. He then returned to the serving hatch and a further altercation occurred, after which he went to his car for a second time. He alleged that it was at this time that he was struck by a beer can thrown by one of the youths. The CCTV footage does not capture anything being thrown at the officer, but does show one of the youths at one stage holding a drinks can, but having nothing in his hand a few seconds later.

The officer then returned to the serving hatch with his police issue personal protection weapon. He pursued the youths and grabbed one, who he forced to the ground. The CCTV footage shows the officer immediately behind the youth, holding him by his clothes at his upper back.

The youth later told Police Ombudsman investigators that the officer had put a gun to the back of his head. This was witnessed by a member of staff from the service station but denied by the officer. CCTV footage shows the officer holding something to the rear of the youth's head, but the item cannot be clearly identified.

The officer then made two 999 calls to inform police about the incident but made no mention about the use of a firearm. Uniformed officers responded to the call and arrested the youths. The Public Prosecution Service later decided not to prosecute any of the youths, nor the officer, in relation to the incident.

The youths, who agreed that one of their company had initiated the incident, stated that the officer had not identified himself as a police officer. The officer, however, insisted that he had.

In his statement to the Police Ombudsman's Office, the officer said he had been returning home after being on-duty when he went to the garage. He denied arguing with the group of youths, but stated that one of them had been the initial aggressor.

He said that having been confronted by the youths he was in fear of being assaulted and having his car stolen. He said he had been hit by a beer thrown at him by one of the youths. He considered driving off but the youths were closing in on him. He had no baton or CS spray and therefore, he stated, no alternative but to draw his firearm.

The officer added that he felt he had a duty of care as a police officer to other people who may be attacked by the youths. He believed they might have had weapons with them though he did not see any.

The officer admitted grabbing one of the youths by the left shoulder to arrest him, but denied putting the gun to his head at any time during the incident. He stated he was holding the gun in his right hand but it was facing away from the youth. He believed the use of his firearm in this manner was proportionate in the circumstances.

The officer also insisted that he had identified himself as a police officer when he drew his firearm. He stated that after apprehending one of the youths he had taken him into the forecourt area so everything could be recorded on CCTV. He denied threatening to shoot anyone.

Having considered the evidence, the Police Ombudsman, Mr Al Hutchinson, concluded that the use of force by the officer had not been the minimum appropriate in the circumstances. The response was neither graduated nor flexible, he said.

No other conflict resolution tactics were employed prior to the use of a firearm, the use or unintended discharge of which could have had serious consequences in a garage forecourt area.

Mr Hutchinson recommended that the PSNI review its training in relation to the use of personal protection weapons while officers are off-duty, to ensure that sufficient attention is paid to legality, necessity and proportionality when considering whether the weapon should be used.