At about 1pm on 23 April 2023, Police received a call from Mr Lyttle’s next door neighbour who reported that Mr Lyttle had shot at their kitchen window with an air rifle. Police planned a response to the incident and at about 4.20pm, Police visited Mr Lyttle’s home address and attempted to speak to him with no success.
At 6pm, Armed Offenders Squad (AOS) officers and a Police Negotiating Team (PNT) arrived to resolve the situation in accordance with the planned response. At 7pm, and due to Mr Lyttle’s failure to engage with Police, AOS officers deployed CS gas in an attempt to force Mr Lyttle from his address. A second gas deployment occurred moments after the first and was also unsuccessful in getting Mr Lyttle to leave his address.
At 8.30pm, members of the AOS breached the front door of Mr Lyttle’s address and were confronted by one of Mr Lyttle’s dogs, which was shot. Officers entered Mr Lyttle’s house for a second time at 9pm in order to place a remotely operated device inside to determine his whereabouts. It was during this second approach that officers unexpectedly encountered Mr Lyttle, who presented two firearms at Police.
Officers, acting in self-defence, then fatally shot Mr Lyttle.
We are of the view that the initial plan for responding to the threat posed by Mr Lyttle was appropriate, but that Police should have attended the scene earlier to ensure the safety of members of the public.
Following the attendance of Police, it was not sufficiently clear who had command as Incident Controller, with there being confusion as to how long officers had been attempting to engage with Mr Lyttle prior to AOS attendance.
We are of the view that it would have been prudent to allow Mr Lyttle more time to surrender. However, once Police were confronted by an armed Mr Lyttle inside the house, they were justified in shooting him in order to defend themselves.