Police response to a firearms incident examined – Metropolitan Police Service, December 2022

A woman and a man called the police to report that there were three men outside their home with guns. They reported that shots had been fired and that the three men were trying to harm the man. The dispatcher requested a local police unit go to the scene while they waited for a decision about whether a firearms response was required.

Two police officers went to the address and spoke to the woman and the man. The officers took the man’s phone number as well as a description of the three men reported to have fired shots. They did not report accurate information back to the control room, complete further enquiries, undertake safeguarding work, or create any reports.

A shooting occurred at a residential address approximately half a mile away later that day, and an associate of the man was injured.

The officers’ body worn video footage was reviewed a few days later by another Metropolitan Police Service team in relation to the potentially linked shooting incident. The footage captured the officers being informed about the firearms incident, updating the control room with incorrect information, and making offensive comments about the woman and the man.

We decided to independently investigate the actions and decisions of the two officers sent to the scene, and whether the race or mental ill health of the woman and man influenced the officers’ actions. We also examined the call handling of the incident, including the decision to send a local unit rather than provide a firearm response.

Our investigators obtained body worn footage, radio transmissions of the calls between the control room and the officers, 999 call recordings, call logs, crime reports and statements. The two officers sent to the scene were interviewed under caution.

Our investigation found that the call handling decisions that were made were reasonable and based upon the information known at the time. They were in line with guidance and standard operating procedures.

However, we concluded that while there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence, the two officers had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the officers sent to the scene had formed rigid opinions of the incident before they had even arrived. They chose not to carry out the tasks that they knew were required and did not treat the situation with the seriousness it deserved. The officers were aware they were dealing with vulnerable people and potentially serious crime but did not approach the incident in a professional way.

We found that one of the officers had a case to answer for gross misconduct for failing to investigate or record the matter or provide the control room with accurate information. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We also found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct for making inappropriate and offensive comments. The force did not agree with this finding. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officer and that they should take the form of a gross misconduct hearing.

The gross misconduct hearing concluded in July 2025. This officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for authority, respect and courtesy, duties and responsibilities, honesty and integrity, and equality and diversity. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct, and the officer would have been dismissed had they still been a serving police officer.

We found that the other officer had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to investigate or record the matter and making inappropriate and offensive comments. We shared our report with the force, who disagreed. The officer was dealt with using the reflective practice review process. This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We made two learning recommendations around procedures when assessing whether a firearms response is needed, and processes ensuring oversight of incidents which have been assessed by a firearms commander but not declared a firearms incident. These recommendations are in the process of being taken forward.