Officers cleared over boy's water pistol arrest

The actions of armed police who surrounded and arrested a black 13-year-old boy after an officer mistook his water pistol for a real gun were "reasonable in the circumstances", the Independent Office For Police Conduct (IOPC) has said.

The child, known as "Child X", was handcuffed and confronted by marksmen in Hackney, east London, in July last year.

The police watchdog, which launched an investigation following complaints from the boy's family, said although the incident had been distressing for the boy, the officers' conduct was "reasonable".

Child X's mother said the IOPC's findings were "extremely disappointing" and said the officers' response was due to his race.

In a statement released through lawyers, she said: "From the very day of this horrific incident, it was clear to me that the police would not have treated my son in the way that they did if he had been a white 13-year-old boy."

The IOPC said its investigation found "no evidence" to suggest the officer who reported seeing the gun was influenced by the child's race.

The Met Police previously apologised for the "trauma" caused to the boy.

The IOPC said that at about 15:45 BST, a patrolling police officer reported seeing the boy pulling out "what appeared to be a handgun" and pointing it at a female on Buxton Road, before they both cycled off.

After the sighting was declared a firearms incident, a number of armed officers were sent to the scene to locate the boy, the report said.

When they saw him cycling towards them, they made "tactical contact" with him with a police vehicle, knocking him into a wall.

He was then surrounded by officers and arrested, although the toy gun was not found.

When the boy's mother appeared and explained he had been playing with a toy water pistol, he was de-arrested and his handcuffs removed, the watchdog said.

He later went to hospital to be treated for bruising.

IOPC regional director Charmaine Arbouin said the incident was "distressing" to the child but that the officers were trying to protect the public.

"Police officers have a duty to protect the public from harm and the evidence from our investigation supported the first officer's belief that he thought he may have seen a real firearm."