Sheriff issues determination in inquiry into death of soldier in accident with loaded sniper rifle

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] FAI 1
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Gary Aitken

Lance Corporal Joe Spencer, aged 24 at the time of his death, died at approximately 5:41pm on 1 November 2016 within an ISO container at the Air Weapons Range in Tain. Due to their ongoing involvement with duties in the armed forces, details about many of the witnesses who were also involved in sniper training were anonymised.

The inquiry was conducted by Sheriff Gary Aitken at Tain Sheriff Court. The Crown was represented by Glancy, principal procurator fiscal depute, with Webster KC and Iridag, advocate, appearing for the Ministry of Defence.

Catastrophic constellation of events

After recovering from a serious injury from a grenade attack while deployed in Afghanistan, LCpl Spencer began training to be a sniper, and at the time of his death he was enrolled on a two-month sniper operators’ course, at which he first conducted a Weapons Handling Test for the rifle involved. The shooting at Tain formed the second phase of the course, delivered by a sniper platoon commander, Colour Sergeant 1.

On the second day of shooting at Tain, during which LCpl Spencer was located on the furthest right point of the range, the deceased did not complete an unload drill said to have been carried out by C/Sgt 1. Another student, Student D, also did not complete an unload drill but his failure to do so was noticed by his spotter, Student F, and his rifle was made safe.

The majority of the recollections of those present was that, at the end of daylight shooting, only the final detail, which LCpl Spencer was not part of, completed a full unload drill. A safety supervisor present behind LCpl Spencer, DS 1, was not present when the deceased finished shooting and could not confirm whether he had properly carried out an unload drill.

While standing in an ISO container, which had miscellaneous items scattered on the floor, waiting to commence night shooting, LCpl Spencer’s rifle discharged without warning. It did so while he was holding it in a position from which he could not operate the trigger, slightly rocking it on his toe. It was clear that he had suffered a head wound that was immediately fatal.

A forensic examination of the rifle found that the trigger mechanism had not been secured properly within the body of the rifle, but it was not possible to determine whether the rifle had been cocked prior to the moment of discharge. No defects in the rifle were identified that could explain the unintended discharge.

In his determination, Sheriff Aitken said of the possible reasons for the rifle’s discharge: “The cluttered and congested ISO container together with the gentle but repetitive upwards and downwards movement of the rifle by LCpl Spencer while resting it on his toecap, coinciding with a moment in time when his head was above the muzzle, have conspired to create a catastrophic constellation of events. It is a reasonable inference that all of these coincided with the snagging of the trigger on something at ground level, or close to it, causing the discharge of the rifle with instantly fatal consequences.”

Cannot be explained

Addressing the relevance of the inquiry outside of military matters, Sheriff Aitken said: “Although the rifle is a high specification military weapon, it is in essence a bolt action rifle. Bolt action riles are not tanks, guided missiles, helicopter gunships or other exclusively military equipment. Bolt action rifles are used by appropriately licenced members of the public, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland.”

He continued: “Sadly, experience tells us that failure to properly train people in the use of, or of failure to follow safe systems of work in relation to, routine equipment can lead to serious injury or fatal results. LCpl Spencer’s death is a further reminder, if such were needed, that safe systems of work are put in place for good reason and should be followed.”

Finding that all witnesses were doing their best to tell the truth, the sheriff added: “The inquiry has looked at the circumstances leading up to LCpl Spencer’s failure to complete the unload procedure, as detailed above, but none of the issues highlighted provide a definitive reason for his failure to completely unload his rifle. The evidence is that LCpl Spencer was a competent, conscientious and dedicated soldier, not someone who was cavalier about risks or who did not take his responsibilities seriously. His failure to complete the unload drill cannot be explained by the evidence available.”

Powerful reminder

Addressing the possibility of a prosecution of anyone involved in the training, Sheriff Aitken said: “I observe that LCpl Spencer’s death occurred as a result of the actions and decisions of a number of individuals, including LCpl Spencer himself. From the evidence available to me I do not consider that any of these individuals acted with malice or recklessness or had any idea of the catastrophic event their actions would lead to. In isolation each of the decisions is relatively innocuous, with the exception of LCpl Spencer’s utterly inexplicable failure to complete the unloading drill for the rifle.”

He concluded: “All it takes is a few random flakes falling in the wrong place at the wrong time to precipitate an avalanche. LCpl Spencer’s death serves as a powerful reminder to those involved in the handling of weapons and those involved in potentially risky activity of any sort that actions can have far reaching consequences. Care needs to be taken in relation to the small things and the routine tasks, not just the bigger picture.”