fire on a stolen car, leading to the
death of its driver outside a local
PSNI station, was “proportionate”, a
coroner has found.
The victim, Steven Colwell (23), who was
originally from the Shankill area of Belfast, and at
the time of his death had been living in
Cullybackey, died at the scene of the 2006 Easter
Sunday shooting, at a hastily arranged
checkpoint next to Ballynahinch police station.
The events of that day were outlined in detail
during a hearing in Belfast last week.
The officer responsible for the father-of-two’s
death – identified only as Officer O during the
inquest – fired his pistol twice, both shots in
“rapid” succession, at the vehicle after it
engaged in dangerous manoeuvres at the
roadblock.
The first of these shots, it would later be
determined, proved fatal.
Last week’s hearing, held at the Royal Courts
of Justice and overseen by His Honour Judge
Neill Rafferty KC, was told that this officer had a
reasonable belief that there was a threat to his
life and the lives of others.
He added that the policeman’s decision to use
lethal force after the car failed to stop “was no
more than was absolutely necessary in the
circumstances which he found himself to be in”.
‘O’ was one of three officers on duty that
morning, and the most senior of those present.
Events leading up to the decision to draw his
firearm were also outlined during the sitting,
which was attended by members of the Colwell
family.
Judge Rafferty rehearsed how the vehicle at
the centre of the incident, a silver BMW, had been
stolen from a property around 1.45am on 16 April
2006 in the Killough area.
The owners, and their neighbours, disturbed
two or three young men as they were taking the
car.
However, they were unable to prevent the
theft. The car’s owner was struck as it sped off,
but not seriously injured.
Steven Colwell was driving the car later that
morning in the Shankill area of Belfast, where he
picked up two male passengers.
The car was sighted in Carryduff at 7.45am and
then in Ballynahinch at 9.28am.
Colwell and his two passengers arrived at a
party at a caravan in Ardglass a short time later.
He did not remain for long at the party, leaving
with five passengers “all packed into the BMW
car”.
At around 10.45am, two of the car’s occupants –
one “likely to be Steven Colwell” – attempted to
burgle a house in the Killough area. The pair
were disturbed, and the car drove off.
A short time later, a witness was asked for
directions to Belfast by the front seat passenger
of the car while on the Point Road, Killough.
This witness noticed that this passenger and
driver were both holding beer bottles.
Judge Rafferty said eyewitness reports
indicated “a chaotic group of young people,
heavily under the influence of drink and drugs,
running amok in a car driven by Steven Colwell”.
Mr Colwell had, toxicology reports later
confirmed, consumed a quantity of MDMA (also
known as Ecstasy).
The quantity was described by a senior
scientific officer as “much higher than usually
associated with so-called recreational use of the
drug and it falls within the range of levels found
in fatalities attributed to MDMA poisoning.”
The report also noted that Mr Colwell would
have been “severely impaired and at the risk of
poisoning” as a result of this substance in his
system.
The court was told family members of the
owner of the stolen car had spotted this car and
were following it as it travelled towards
Ballynahinch.
This sighting was reported to police, via a 999
call, at 11.08am.
The caller told the police controller, during the
course of this call, that they would be following
the vehicle in a bid to get it stopped.
The court also heard that other eyewitnesses
reported that at times the stolen car was
travelling, as it neared Ballynahinch, at speeds of
100mph, while at other times it was around
45mph.
Officers in Ballynahinch were, at this stage,
informed of the stolen car’s direction of travel
and “to be on the lookout” for it.
Judge Rafferty said the decision to set up the
VCP came about when Officer O and his two
colleagues, who were the only police on duty at
Ballynahinch station that morning, had been
listening to radio transmissions describing
sightings of the vehicle.
When it became apparent the car was in
Seaforde and heading in their direction, “the
officers collectively decided to set up a VCP”
outside the station, and the PSNI control room
was informed.
Officer O “took up a position in the middle of
the road” whilst a policewoman “stood further
down the road in the direction of Newcastle, and
in order to inform Officer O if she spotted the
stolen vehicle.”
The third officer remained with a police
vehicle, parked close to the station’s gate “in
readiness to be driven off ”.
A stinger device – which punctures tyres – was
with this third officer and was ready to be
deployed.
He had also drawn an MP5 long-arm weapon
“as it was considered appropriate, in response to
the level of threat from dissident republican
terrorists in the area”.
Officer O had formed a plan, however had not
shared it with his colleagues, “to approach the
stolen car in the manner of a normal, routine
check” and that once the driver’s window was
open he would reach in and remove the keys
from the ignition.
His plan was “to bring the vehicle into the
constricted area, the choke point, outside the
police station and effectively to bluff the driver
into believing police were unaware he was
driving a stolen vehicle” and then grab the keys
and arrest the driver.
However, Wednesday’s hearing noted that
“important and valuable information” had not
been relayed to the three officers from the police
control room.
Judge Rafferty said Officer O had been
unaware of the number of passengers in the
stolen car, two of whom were teenage girls, and
that it was likely the driver would not have
wanted to be caught up in a checkpoint and “in
effect the plan to bluff the driver was therefore
unlikely to be successful as it was clear the driver
of a stolen vehicle would not be inclined to think
he could proceed” with four passengers in the
rear seat.
The fact that the stolen car was being followed
by relatives of its owners was also not relayed to the officers in Ballynahinch that day.
Leading up to the moments as Colwell and his
passengers neared the VCP, Judge Rafferty said
Officer O’s assessment that “an unsuspecting
driver would try to bluff his way through the VCP
quickly unravelled” when the car began to
perform a U-turn on the road.
One of the officers on scene later admitted
being “taken by surprise” by this action.
Attempts were made by police to stop the car,
with demands for it to stop.
Officer O had already drawn his weapon as he
approached the car’s bonnet.
He approached from the driver’s side, as it
exited the line of traffic, and turned into the
driveways of two homes which neighbour the
station.
Noting that “as a matter of evidence Mr
Colwell was impaired with drink and drugs at the
time,” Judge Rafferty rehearsed how vehicles
were positioned in the slowed down traffic, in
both the Ballynahinch and Newcastle-bound
lanes, as the stolen BMW approached the VCP.
The judge told last Wednesday’s hearing “that
within a confined area a frantic attempt was
being made to turn the BMW in the opposite
direction of travel”.
He continued: “High engine revving and wheel
spins were heard.
“The BMW, which was initially facing towards
the town centre, made some sharp back and
forward manoeuvres before turning sharply” into
the front driveway areas of the private
properties.
Unable to complete a U-turn, the stolen car
reversed back, impacting with a civilian car
which was, until this point, stationary in the line
of traffic.
One of Officer O’s colleagues had to “jump or
step out of the way of the reversing BMW to avoid
being crushed”.
As the fast-paced events unfolded, one of
Officer O’s colleagues had drawn their weapon as
he “had anticipated danger but had not made the
weapon ready to fire” as they shouted for the car
to stop, and its passengers to get out.
Around the same time, the driver of the vehicle
which had been following the stolen vehicle,
“immediately pulled” his car across onto the
Newcastle-bound lane and “blocked a route of
escape for the silver BMW on the road back
towards Newcastle”.
The “only remaining option” Judge Rafferty
added, was for Mr Colwell to mount the car onto
the pavement in a bid to get away.
The judge added that civilians on the scene
that day had formed “an overwhelming
impression” that “there was a determination to
evade the police, with little or no regard for the
safety of other road users and the police officers
who were attempting to stop the vehicle”.
There were, he added, witnesses left “fearing
for their own lives, and the lives of the police
officers”.
Judge Rafferty continued: “I am satisfied the
vehicle was presenting a real danger to anyone in
the immediate vicinity. There was a
determination, on the part of the driver, not to
stop for police and to forcibly drive away.”
He also noted that, up until the point shots
were discharged, eyewitness evidence did not
show “that the driver of the BMW had given any
signal of acceptance that he was trapped and
finished with his attempt to escape police”.
The court also heard that police radio
communications confirmed that within 60
seconds after the car first arrived at the VCP, it
was reported by Officer O ‘contact, contact,
November, contact.’
Officer O was seen by one of his colleagues
standing at the front right-hand side of the car
with his handgun in the aim position, used in
police terminology as ‘a hard or firm stop’.
One of his colleagues then attempted to open
one of the rear doors.
The vehicle then sped forward, and with this
officer pulled off-balance they had to let go of the
handle.
At this stage, two shots were discharged. One
bullet entered via the windscreen. Steven Colwell
was fatally wounded in the chest.
The second bullet, which came through the
driver’s side window, grazed his chest but did not
contribute to the death.
In the aftermath of the shots being discharged,
the stolen car came to rest. Mr Colwell got out,
and, having collapsed, said to an off-duty nurse
who got out of one of the stationary vehicles: “I’ve
been shot, am I going to die?”
This local woman’s actions were commended
by Judge Rafferty.
He said that “immediately and without
hesitation and without thought for herself, (she
had) carried out unprotected mouth-to-mouth
and CPR over a prolonged period, in a valiant
attempt to preserve the life of Steven Colwell.
“In my view, this was a courageous, humane
and professional course of conduct and it is
appropriate that I commend her for her actions,”
he added.
First aid was administered by both this
woman, other witnesses and police until the
arrival of paramedics.
Upon arrival, at 11.33am, paramedics found
there was no pulse or respiration.
They continued, with the off-duty nurse’s
assistance, with CPR and used a defibrillator.
Drugs were also given.
A police doctor subsequently arrived and Mr
Colwell’s “life was pronounced extinct at
12.07pm”.
Turning his attention to Officer O’s actions,
Judge Rafferty said – having assessed and
weighed the evidence of civilian eyewitnesses,
that of other police and from expert witnesses –
that “Officer O’s belief that his life, and the lives
of others were at that precise moment, in danger,
was reasonable; and therefore honestly and
genuinely held”.
However, he levelled a degree of criticism
elsewhere within the PSNI, in particular
circumstances earlier in the day.
In his conclusions, the judge said the Police
Service “failed to provide a satisfactory or
convincing explanation that the operation had
been planned and controlled with care to
minimise the risk to life”.
He said “obvious control and planning
improvements could have improved the
prospects of the tragic events being avoided”.
The judge added that the 999 call made from a
witness was “inappropriately handled” and vital
information was missed.
As his 17-point summary drew to an end,
Judge Rafferty concluded: “I have been careful
not to draw too heavily on the wisdom of
hindsight in judging the planning and controlling
of this operation.
“It might be argued that police were not to
know there was a real risk that it might be
necessary to resort to lethal force.
“This cannot, however, be used as a reason to
conduct an operation to stop a stolen vehicle in a
manner which included neglecting asking
rudimentary questions and allowing members of
the public to continue to pursue a stolen vehicle.
Such failings in this case demonstrates great
risks to life, which can always be avoided where
possible.
“I consider that it is not possible to say that, on
the balance of probabilities, that a properly
planned and controlled operation – leading up to
the stolen vehicle arriving at the VCP – would
have resulted in the tragic events which unfolded
being avoided.”
