PC Alex Potts who pulled the trigger of a suspected firearm twice, discharging a blank round while looking towards a colleague, has escaped a gross misconduct finding — despite a senior officer condemning his actions as “incredibly stupid and reckless”.
PC Potts, of Staffordshire Police, was searching a residential property when he discovered what appeared to be a firearm.
Rather than treating the weapon as potentially dangerous and calling in specialist firearms officers, he told a colleague it was a fake gun — despite having no qualifications to make that assessment.
He then pulled the trigger not once, but twice.
On the second occasion, while looking toward his colleague, he recklessly discharged a blank round.
The extraordinary incident, on August 11, 2025, led to disciplinary proceedings in which PC Potts admitted breaching professional standards.
But despite the potentially dangerous consequences of his actions, the Assistant Chief Constable chairing his hearing decided his behaviour did not amount to gross misconduct.
Instead, the officer’s case was referred back to the force’s Appropriate Authority for consideration at a misconduct meeting.
The decision means PC Potts has avoided a gross misconduct finding, although he could still face disciplinary sanctions.
The allegations against him centred on breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities and Discreditable Conduct.
They included wrongly declaring the weapon to be fake, failing to request assistance from authorised firearms officers, pulling its trigger twice and breaching force policy on firearms and evidence handling.
In his formal response to the allegations, PC Potts accepted that his conduct amounted to misconduct but denied it was sufficiently serious to constitute gross misconduct.
The hearing chair did not attempt to excuse the officer’s actions.
In a damning assessment, the Assistant Chief Constable declared: “There is no doubt that PC Potts’ actions on the 11th of August were both stupid and reckless and fell below professional standards expected of officers.”
However, the chair concluded there were significant mitigating circumstances.
PC Potts had an otherwise unblemished record, the incident was isolated and there had been no premeditation or planning.
The chair also accepted there had been no intent behind his actions in terms of the consequences.
Crucially, body-worn video footage supported the officer’s claim that he genuinely believed the firearm was fake, although he acknowledged he was not qualified to determine whether that was the case.
The officer also admitted what happened early on, provided a consistent account, and made no attempt to conceal the facts.
The chair said: “PC Potts admitted his actions at a very early stage and his initial account has remained consistent, he has not tried to hide facts or be dishonest in any way.”
But the decision raises an obvious question about the standards expected of officers handling suspected firearms.
Police officers are trained to recognise the dangers posed by weapons and to follow established procedures designed to protect themselves, their colleagues and the public.
In this case, PC Potts made his own assessment of a suspected firearm, failed to summon specialist assistance and pulled its trigger twice.
The second trigger pull discharged a blank round while he was looking towards a fellow officer.
The chair acknowledged the effect the incident could have had on both the colleague involved and public confidence in policing.
Nevertheless, the Assistant Chief Constable concluded that dismissal would not be justified.
The written determination stated: “I recognise the impact of PC Potts’ actions upon his colleague and the reputation of policing, however with all facts considered I do not feel that this one off, incredibly stupid and reckless act, amount to conduct that is so serious as to justify dismissal.”
The case was therefore returned to the Appropriate Authority to be dealt with under the misconduct process.
There is no indication in the published determination of the outcome of any subsequent misconduct meeting.
The decision illustrates the distinction disciplinary panels draw between reckless conduct and behaviour deemed serious enough to warrant dismissal.
For PC Potts, his early admissions, previously clean record and apparent belief that the weapon was fake proved decisive in avoiding the more serious classification.
But the central fact remains: a police officer who was not qualified to declare a gun safe pulled its trigger twice, discharged a blank round while looking towards a colleague — and was judged not to have crossed the threshold for gross misconduct.
Staffordshire Police
- Misconduct News (7)
- Upcoming Hearings (0)
- Stats since 1st January 2022
-
37 Misconduct Hearings
89% held in public
