BBC
A court heard that an officer was hurt during an incident in Inverness
A police officer who was injured while tackling an armed man has won a £210,000 damages claim against Police Scotland.
A court heard that Mark Card, 49, was called to an incident in Inverness in May 2019 but was incorrectly told by a police control room that the suspect was in handcuffs.
When Mr Card arrived on the scene the man – who had previously been armed with a knife – threw an “unidentified object” at the officer before repeatedly punching him on his head and body.
The officer’s lawyers argued that armed police should have been deployed, but Police Scotland’s legal team said Mr Card had also failed to properly observe procedures and his training in dealing with the situation.
Mr Card, who left the force in 2023, took his case to the All Scotland Personal Injury Court in Edinburgh.
The court heard that the former officer and his colleagues were called to a house during an incident involving a man who has only been identified as C.
Earlier, following a disturbance, C had been detained by officers who spotted he was carrying a knife.
But C ran away before the officers could apply handcuffs or remove his weapon.
These officers then contacted Police Scotland’s control room in Dundee and notified them of the situation.
However, the court heard that the control room incorrectly logged that C was in handcuffs at the moment he fled.
The court was told that as a consequence of this information, a more senior officer decided not to deployed armed officers.
They also failed to log details of C’s criminal record and pending criminal cases.
The court heard officers, including Mr Card, did not then receive a “stay safe” message.
‘Ferocious attack’
Mr Card and his colleagues entered the house unaware that the tactical situation was different from the one presented to them by colleagues in Dundee.
The court heard that Mr Card noticed C sitting on the bed with his back to him and an unidentified object in his hands.
Mr Card shouted “show hands” but C got up and threw the object, before launching a “ferocious attack.”
Lawyers for Mr Card told Sheriff Iain Nicol that officers in Dundee acted negligently in failing to properly record information about the situation.
They also claimed the control room acted negligently in failing to deploy armed response officers.
But lawyers for Police Scotland argued that Mr Card also failed to properly observe established procedures and his training and experience in dealing with the situation.
They argued he should have taken a more cautious approach in dealing with C and his actions contributed to him being assaulted.
Suspect described as ‘violent’
In a written judgement, Sheriff Nicol wrote lawyers in the case had agreed that Mr Card should receive £350,000 if Police Scotland was held to be at total fault.
But Sheriff Nicol concluded Mr Card was 40% responsible for what happened with C and that the damages should be reduced.
He added: “The simple facts of this case are that the pursuer knew the relevant safety principles which applied to the situation which he was confronted with.”
The sheriff said Mr Card had been trained to communicate with control and to stay outside the house with his colleagues until further instructions were received.
Details of Mr Card’s injuries have not been revealed.
The judgement said a control room log described C as “violent” and an “escaper”.
It was updated to show that he had 10 pending cases and 61 previous convictions – including one from 2018 for assault and possession of an offensive weapon.
Officer ‘ignored practice and procedure’
The court heard that this information should have been relayed to the initial tactical firearms commander to inform the risk assessment.
However, due to failures in communication and record-keeping, the information was not acted upon.
The court found this contributed to the negligent decision not to deploy armed officers.
The sheriff concluded that Police Scotland staff failed to act appropriately and contributed to a situation where Mr Card ended up being injured.
But Sheriff Nicol said the former officer also contributed to the situation.
He wrote: “The pursuer had an aim and that was to ‘remove C from society so he would no longer pose a threat.’
“However, he went about it by ignoring well established practice and procedure.
“I stop short from holding that he was guilty of the most wanton disregard for his own safety, but if he had simply stopped and thought about his training and drew on his vast experience he would have known he should be communicating with control and remaining outside the property.”
A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “Being assaulted on duty is not part of the job of being a police officer.
“We will review the findings from the court carefully to identify any organisational learnings that may improve the safety and wellbeing of our colleagues.”
