POLICE pulled machine guns on innocent people following a string of “malicious” calls falsely claiming there were armed black men in an Edinburgh street.
Scotland’s national force is apologising to eight individuals after an independent watchdog said officers acted in away that was “completely unwarranted”.
In less than two short hours in in the early hours of a Saturday morning last July squads of armed officers responded to a series of calls in the capital.
They detained a man in his pyjamas, stripped searched two women and detained them for 24 hours without legal reason to do so, and, according to a blisteringly critical report, pointed their weapons at eleven people on three occasions.
- READ MORE: Police Scotland under investigation over use of new technology which accesses mobile phones
Most of their actions, which took place in the aftermath of a series of terror attacks in London and Manchester early last year, were based on what turned out to be unsubstantiated allegations made by an unidentified man.
Police Scotland sources have told The Herald they now believe these allegations were malicious.
After a formal report, Kate Frame, Police Investigations and Review Commissioner or Pirc, said: “While these were fast-moving events which related to a number of significant issues, it resulted in four armed response vehicles and nine firearms officers being deployed on seven occasions and police pointing their guns at eleven people on three separate occasions over a period of less than an hour and a half.
“A number of these people were detained and searched on the strength principally of allegations made by an unidentifiable male and this action in a number of instances appears to have been entirely unwarranted.”
Police Scotland has acknowledged some things went wrong despite praising the professionalism of its armed officers.
Chief Superintendent Matt Richards, head of specialist services, said: “The nature of spontaneous firearms incidents means they require time-critical decision making, often based on information from the public that is incomplete or continually changing.
“The officers involved in responding to this incident were all acting in good faith in what was a difficult and fast-moving situation. However, it is clear that on this occasion it was not handled well.”
Pirc appeared to cast doubt on the evidence of officers who were holding weapons during the incident. The Herald understands the officers admit they were holding guns. They deny aiming these weapons at members of the public.
As part of events, which started shortly after midnight on July 22 and lasted an hour an a half, armed police detained a man in an building before searching his flat and his car.
Pirc said the “balance of probabilities” indicated police pointed their weapons at him and other residents in the stairwell of the building.
It added there appeared to be “no legitimate basis for Police Scotland to suspect that the man had any involvement” and that officers who searched his home and car appeared to lack the lawful authority to do so.
Armed response vehicles later blocked two cars - an Audi and Peugeot - which were also suspected of being involved.
Those in the cars “describe the officers pointing machine guns at them whilst shouting to them to get out their vehicles with their hands up”, the Pirc report said, while one of the two women in the Peugeot “describes how she saw the gun’s red dot on her chest”.
The five occupants were all taken from the cars at gunpoint and detained.
The Pirc report said: “Despite there being no evidence to connect the two women to any offence, they were kept in police custody for almost 24 hours, during which time they were strip-searched.
“They were later released without charge.”
The three men were charged with threatening and abusive behaviour but the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ordered their release from custody and no criminal proceedings have been brought against them.
The Pirc report said the area control room (ACR) inspector involved in the incidents appeared to have “committed to a course of action without seeking additional information or intelligence to revise, review or amend his decisions” in line with the police decision-making model.
It added that “at no time did the ACR inspector seek the advice of a tactical firearms adviser (TFA) to explore what other options were available to him”, adding that if he had done this “it is likely that he would have been advised that his authorisation of armed officers was not appropriate in the circumstances”.
Human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar said: “Armed officers were deployed on the basis of uncorroborated and most likely ‘bogus’ information from a member of the public.
“What is truly shocking is that nine officers deployed their weapons despite not being authorised to do so. They then raced about Edinburgh acting more like ‘Keystone cops on a wild goose chase’ than highly trained firearms officers.
“On four separate occasions, several innocent members of the public claim to have had weapons pointed at them, yet officers then denied doing so. Two women were stripped searched and detained for 24 hours, despite there being no legal basis for doing so.
“Sadly, society today requires armed officers to be deployed on our streets, but the Pirc investigation exposes a catalogue of failures and a horrifying disregard for the use of firearms, which could easily have resulted in the death of an innocent member of public.
“There is no point in robust regulations or demands for more armed officers, if the ones we have fail to obey the rules.”
Edinburgh councillor Cameron Rose, a former police inspector, warned against armchair judgments on officers after a fast-moving incident when on-the-go decisions were made.
He said it was "of the utmost concern" that accounts given by officers were found to be unreliable. He stressed: "Pirc found there were good opportunities to engage with the man who was the source of the information, which were missed."
- READ MORE: Police Scotland under investigation over use of new technology which accesses mobile phones
Speaking of failure to seek guidance from more senior officers, Mr Rose added: "Planned processes and procedures will never cover all situations that officers facing the kind of tumult of events or apparent events whcich took place one after another.
"You need a flexibility of response. But Pirc is reporting on very suibstantial departures from proper firearms processes so that is of considerable concern."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel