Officers acted appropriately after toy gun triggers armed response

The incident happened in September 2025 when Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) armed response officers responded to reports that a gun had been seen in a car being driven in Belfast.

After investigating a complaint about the incident, Police Ombudsman investigators found that officers had been right to treat it as a potentially serious threat.

Body-worn video and available CCTV coverage was reviewed, showing the complainant stepping out of the vehicle and placing his hands on his head as instructed.

He was then brought to the ground by two police officers.

One of the officers told Ombudsman investigators that he had made a split-second decision to pull the complainant to the ground after his left hand moved downwards and he believed that it was a high-risk situation.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that while this movement was not clearly visible on video footage, the officer’s account was consistent with his notebook entry and the recorded motion of his own hands at the time.

Ombudsman investigators also assessed whether the force used was both necessary and proportionate. They considered that given the nature of the report, the perceived risk, and the officer’s credible belief that the complainant’s hand had moved, taking the complainant to the ground and maintaining control until he was handcuffed and the suspected weapon secured, fell within the bounds of reasonable force.

The Ombudsman also examined a complaint about the same officer having used the water pistol at the scene. He acknowledged having sprayed it once at the ground and stated that his intention had been to de‑escalate what was likely to have been a traumatic incident for the complainant and others involved.

It was also noted that, by this stage, the complainant’s friends were engaging positively with officers.

Although the act was deemed to have been unprofessional in the context of an armed response deployment, Police Ombudsman investigators accepted the officer’s explanation and did not recommend any further action.

Senior investigator, Martin McCaffery, said: “Having carefully assessed the evidence, including the reports made to police by members of the public, we are satisfied that there is no evidence to suspect that the officers have conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant a recommendation for either criminal or misconduct sanctions. It is important that all such actions by police are independently and robustly investigated to ensure that the use of force by police is necessary, justified and proportionate in the circumstances.”

Commenting on a Police Ombudsman report, Chief Superintendent Stephen Murray, head of the PSNI’s Professional Standards Department, said: “We welcome the Police Ombudsman’s office concluding that our officers had been right to treat this report as a potentially serious threat and, contrary to the complaint, excessive force had not been used.

“Police officers have to make difficult decisions in challenging circumstance every day.  In this case, this was a serious report of someone brandishing what was believed to be a firearm in the Donegall Street area of Belfast. Officers responded quickly and it transpired, during a search, this was a toy resembling a firearm, however, the fear and perceived threat to the public was there.

“Police treat all reports involving firearms extremely seriously in order to protect the public and our officers. When such reports are received, officers must respond quickly and take appropriate action to ensure that any potential threat is safely contained. We would remind members of the public of the very real dangers of presenting items that look like firearms in public. Such actions cause fear within the community and present significant risks.”