Introduction of Tasers in Jersey - Report - 9 July 2012

Education and Home

Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Introduction of Tasers in

Jersey

Presented to the States on 9th July 2012

S.R.4/2012

Contents

1. CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD ........................................................................................................... 4
2. KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 7
3. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 8
4. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 11
5. CALL FOR EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................. 14
6. TASER – KEY FACTS .................................................................................................................. 15
7. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 27
8. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 37
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS ..................................................................................................................... 47
10. PANEL ANALYSIS: TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................ 71
11. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................. 90
12. Appendix 1 – Public attitudes towards Tasers – Results from Online Survey ................................ 91
13. Appendix 2 - Selected Responses ................................................................................................ 95
14. Appendix Three - Terms of Reference ........................................................................................ 102
15. Appendix Four - Key reference documents ................................................................................. 103

1. CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD

This review has sparked much public interest and I would like to thank all those members of the public who contributed their opinions. They provided the Scrutiny Panel with many of the key issues and themes during this review. Additionally, I would like to thank the members of the Panel: the Constable of St Brelade, the Constable of St Martin and Deputy Tadier of St Brelade. Each brought an extremely useful perspective to the table. Furthermore, I would like to thank the Home Affairs and States of Jersey Police for their cooperation in providing the Panel with the information sought. Finally, but by no means least, I would also like to thank our Scrutiny Officer Mike Haden for all of his hard work and invaluable support to the Panel.

The proposal for the introduction of Tasers into Jersey has proved to be a controversial matter with polarised opinions. These range from a complete distrust of the States of Jersey Police to unquestioning support for the Force. I would suggest that neither are a healthy position to hold. However, as with any position of authority, constant vigilance and questioning has to be done. Whilst the Panel notes that certain elements of the States of Jersey Police were upset with the rigour that the Panel undertook doing this review, as it was viewed by some that this was an operational matter, the public would expect no less thoroughness. The Panel also supports the Minister's view that this matter is political.

During the review the central question for the Panel was for the Minister to establish a clear need for the introduction of Tasers. While the Minister, Chief Officer of Police and the Police Association all support the introduction of Tasers, in limited circumstances only, as an additional option to use against violent aggression, none, in our view, have yet been able to demonstrate a fully convincing case for the need for Tasers in Jersey. The evidence demonstrates that Jersey is a very safe place to live, with very low levels of violent crime, that the States of Jersey Police have never fired a shot from a conventional firearm in the field and appear to be able to cope with the situations that they find themselves in with CS spray, batons, by talking through and calming a situation down. The Panel believes that this is a testimony to the professionalism and the high standards of training of the States of Jersey Police. That is something the Panel wishes to praise and of which Island should be proud. I would to take this opportunity to thank the States of Jersey Police force for their hard work on behalf of Islanders, in a role which is not easy, at times dangerous and that many could not do.

The public feedback that the Panel received was clear in that great concern was expressed about the risks of introducing a new armed element into local policing and thereby promoting a possible change in culture of the Police Force, moving from a British model of policing by consent to a US style model of enforcement. This was expressed as being extremely undesirable by many of the public who contributed to our review. The evidence of overuse of Tasers in the US, and in particular the number of deaths which are attributed to Tasers there, has shocked many people. Many need to be convinced and reassured that the Police here in Jersey would use Tasers responsibly and only as a last resort against seriously violent offenders. We don't support a rejection of the proposal for introducing Tasers because the evidence of Taser use in Britain and other Crown Dependencies, where strict procedures and controls are in place, supports the view that they can be used responsibly. The Panel agrees with the rationale that, should Tasers be introduced, they should be restricted to Authorised Firearms Officers only. This calmed many of my concerns personally and changed my opinion significantly. But the Minister must present a more convincing case to the general public.

Further concern was expressed by the public regarding the medical implications of the use of Tasers. There is a wide body of published evidence on this which we have examined in our review. Whilst the evidence would support that an average healthy adult should not suffer from any long term medical problems after being subject to a Taser, there is always the risk that a targeted person may still fall and this can cause them injury. However, currently this risk is also present should a police officer have to restraint someone, having to tackle them to the ground for example. Those at higher risk of injury or even fatality are those with mental health issues or those intoxicated on illegal drugs or alcohol. The evidence provided to us by the States of Jersey Police Force stated that, in the majority of cases where a violent crime occurred, the perpetrator fell into one of these categories. This provides a further dilemma as those who are in the greater risk groups are those most likely to have a Taser used against them. This is a situation one has to accept if one supports the introduction of Tasers. However, much of this can be managed should there be a high level of training given. The Panel are content that the appropriate level of training would be issued.

In our review we carefully examined the guidelines which govern the situations in which Tasers, if approved, might be used. We found, however, that the current draft of the Minister's policy skirts over these and was much too vague for the Panel and the public to accept. Thus many of our recommendations focus on providing a clear understanding of when Tasers might be deployed and used. This is to reassure the public, given the concern expressed above, and also to protect the police officers who may have to use Tasers, by giving them a clear framework to work within. We believe that the publication of clear, prescriptive guidance can prevent mission creep' – the tendency for Taser use to extend to more and more areas of policing - which was a core issue for the Panel also.

In conclusion, the Taser can be lethal weapon even when used correctly, so the case for need has to be strongly made. This is not the current situation. The draft report and proposition of the Minister needs to be amended to give greater clarity in areas such as deployment, use, governance and accountability in order to gain the support of the Public and the Panel.

Deputy Jeremy Maçon

Chairman

Education and Home Affairs Panel

2. KEY FINDINGS

(Numbers in italics refer to paragraphs in the report)

Key Finding 1 –The Panel accepts that there is a justification for providing officers who are already authorised to carry conventional firearms with full lethal force, as well as other less lethal, but potentially fatal weapons, with a less lethal alternative to a conventional firearm, provided that clearly defined boundaries are set for the deployment and use of these weapons. (192)

Key Finding 2 – The Panel, however, is not satisfied that the information supplied in the draft report accompanying the Minister's proposition provides an adequately strong or convincing case for the deployment of a new weapon in Jersey. The Panel believes that the Minister should provide clearer evidence of the capability gap which Taser might fill before his proposal to introduce Tasers is progressed. (196)

Key Finding 3 – The Panel believes that, if it can be clearly shown that the scope of deployment of Tasers will be restricted within narrow limits and their use by the SOJ Police strictly controlled and monitored, then their introduction to Jersey would be more acceptable to the public. (200)

Key Finding 4 – The Panel would be concerned if the States of Jersey Police were to take an operational decision which would extend the deployment use of Tasers in Jersey without the Minister first referring the matter to the States for consideration. (201)

Key Finding 5 – The Panel believes that the current wording of the draft proposition might still leave justification for the use of Tasers where they might have been avoidable given the use of lesser force options. (214)

Key Finding 6 – The Minister's draft report accompanying his proposition on Tasers is clearly written from the perspective of the States of Jersey Police. It fails to address the public concerns which have been evident in the response to the Panel's review. (217)

Key Finding 7 – Tactical training in the use of Taser must provide officers with an understanding of the risks associated with Taser, the necessary precautions and de- escalation and/or crisis intervention techniques. (242)

Key Finding 8 – The Police Chief is satisfied, as an accounting officer, that the costs for Taser are proportionate within his overall budget for the policing training and operations. (245)

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 – The Minister's report should include an assessment of incidents in Jersey where the deployment and use of a Taser might have been considered. (196)

Recommendation 2 – The Minister must ensure that anyone subject to the use of Taser by the States of Jersey Police is fully aware of their rights, of the proper procedures which the Police should follow and of ways in which they might submit a complaint about any perceived misuse of Tasers by the police to an independent body. (213)

Recommendation 3 – The Minister should further define the threshold for the use of Taser by adding the following wording to paragraph 1 of his proposition:

Even if there is a specific threat, the use of Tasers should not be authorised unless the accredited Firearms Commander was satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that:

100. no lesser force option has been, or will be, effective in eliminating the risk of bodily harm; and
101. de-escalation and/or crisis intervention techniques have not been or will not be effective in eliminating the risk of bodily harm. (215)

Recommendation 4 – The circumstances of the use of Taser, outside of the terms of a firearms authorisation, should be more clearly defined in the Minister's report. (216)

Recommendation 5 – The Minister's report should specifically address the key issues and concerns associated with Tasers, raised by the public during the Scrutiny review. (218)

Recommendation 6 – The Minister's report should more clearly acknowledge the potential risks in using Tasers. In particular, the Minister's report should specifically state that Tasers should only ever be used as a weapon of last resort. (219)

Recommendation 7 – The Minister's report should state that officers will be required to assess continued resistance by an offender after each standard five second cycle and should limit the use of Taser to no more than three standard cycles. (220)

Recommendation 8 – The use of Taser in drive stun mode' should be prohibited unless a strong case can be made for its use in very limited and defined circumstances. (221)

Recommendation 9 – The Minister's report should define circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to deploy Tasers. (222)

Recommendation 10 – The Minister's report should draw attention to the justification of Taser in terms of safety for officers, members of the public and the violent subject individual. (223)

Recommendation 11 – The Minister's report should clarify how Armed Response Vehicles are deployed and specify that there is no intention to allow Tasers to be deployed to deal with the lower levels of violent behaviour which occurs on a regular basis on the streets of St Helier and does not involve the use of potentially lethal weapons. (224)

Recommendation 12 – The statement in the draft report there has been a notable rise in incidents requiring a firearms response in the last two years' is not supported by the evidence provided by the SOJ Police and should be amended. It should be made clear that the criteria in ACPO guidance for the authorisation of firearms have recently been broadened. (225)

Recommendation 13 – The Chief Officer's annual report on Tasers should clarify the circumstances of any incident in which Taser is deployed or used and provide justification for the decision, taking into account the key features of the above discussion on the circumstances in which Tasers might be used. (226)

Recommendation 14 – The Minister's report should spell out the stringent procedures which according to ACPO policy must be followed on every occasion when Taser is used in a policing operation. (228)

Recommendation 15 – The Minister's report should set out clearly the aftercare due to any person who has been subjected to the discharge of a Taser. (230)

Recommendation 16 – The Jersey Police Complaints Authority should routinely monitor every deployment of Tasers by the States of Jersey police, whether or not this results in any of the actions referred to as use' of Taser. (233)

Recommendation 17 – The Jersey Police Complaints Authority should review and evaluate the deployment and use of Taser in the Island after its first year of use and prepare a report to the States thereon and annually thereafter. (233)

Recommendation 18 – The Minister's report should specify that the individual officer using a Taser will be held accountable for the use of Taser. (234)

Recommendation 19 – All complaints regarding the use of Tasers by the States of Jersey Police should be referred to the Jersey Police Complaints Authority for consideration. (235) Recommendation 20 – The Minister should amend his draft proposition in order to state specifically that any change of policy in relation to the use of Tasers would be brought to the States for debate and endorsement. (246)

4. INTRODUCTION

1. The possibility of the States of Jersey Police having Tasers at their disposal came about in February 2012 when the UK Government reviewed its policy on the export of Tasers. The export of Tasers had been previously banned due to their classification as potential instruments of torture. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, however, acknowledged the need to allow the limited export of Tasers because of operational difficulties for UK Police services, Police services of the Crown Dependencies and some British Overseas Territories who seek to use Tasers, consistent with their use by UK Police Forces, as a measured alternative to the use of lethal force'.[1]
2. The Minister for Home Affairs welcomed this development; however, he said that he would not authorise the purchase of Tasers by the States of Jersey Police without the approval of the States Assembly: I want the States Police to be able to deploy the lowest possible level of response to serious threats to public safety. At present there are situations in which firearms are being deployed where the lower level of Tasers would be much better. It will, however, be necessary to set appropriate procedures as to when a Taser could be deployed or used. I will not authorise their purchase or use without the approval of the States of Jersey.'[2]
3. The Minister added: The particular area which they are needed is if somebody is wielding a knife, Samurai sword or something of that nature. You can't get up close to them to deploy CS spray and the alternative is you end up deploying guns.'[3]
4. Following the Minister's announcement a number of comments expressing concern appeared in the local media. Deputy Montfort Tadier told the BBC: My natural instinct is that I don't think in the Jersey context we have the levels of crime that would necessitate bringing Tasers to the Island.'[4]

5. In an email to States Members Deputy Tadier referred to the many instances of the inappropriate use of Tasers including a father Tasered because he had a plastic gun in his brief case (a toy for his son) and evidence of the lethal potential of Tasers (and not 11 years ago in Canada, but recently and in the UK). Secondly, we are not the UK and we do not have the 60 million population with the level of crime that they do. Surely, the question of proportionality has to be posed and related to the Jersey context. Perception is also important.[5]
6. Mr. P. Lightbody, writing to the Jersey Evening Post, posed the following questions

• How many incidents of confrontation with the police have occurred in the past five years?
• What grades of incidents were involved? What was the outcome?
• When and of what level was the last injury sustained by a police officer?
• What is the cost of purchase, initial training, recurrent training and servicing?

7. Mr. Lightbody acknowledged that Tasers might provide added security for officers but said that there must be a balance of risk: the duty of care to officers must be balanced against the greater ideas of both human rights and civil liberty, for which all police officers and politicians are ultimately responsible.'[6]
8. Bob Hill, writing in his Blog, recalled the previous occasion in September 2007 when the possible introduction of Tasers had last been raised in the States Assembly. He said that he had been saddened by the justification provided by the former Assistant Minister for Home Affairs. The Assistant Minister had explained that Tasers give better officer safety as they can be discharged at up to a distance of 21 feet'. Mr Hill commented: Every step away from a suspect is a step away from consensus policing'. He said that there were many questions that needed to be asked, in particular: Who will be accountable should something untoward occur by the misuse of a Taser gun?'[7]

9. The Scrutiny Panel agreed to investigate the questions raised above. Members recognised that the decision to import Tasers for use in Jersey was not simply an operational matter for the Chief Officer of Police; there were important public- interest issues about the use of Tasers, including the circumstances in which they could be used, the training and guidelines given to officers and the extent to which they were appropriate for the local community.
10. The Panel agreed at its meeting on 14th February 2012 to undertake the proposed review and requested its officer to research the issues and prepare suitable terms of reference[8]. Members also agreed to invite Deputy Tadier to participate in the review as a co-opted member. Deputy Tadier accepted the invitation, having declared n interest in the matter as the current Chairman of the Jersey Human Rights Group[9].
11. The Panel is grateful to the Minister for Home Affairs for providing the Panel with a copy of his draft report and proposition on the introduction of the use of Tasers and for agreeing to defer lodging until after receiving the Panel's report and considering its findings and recommendations. Most of our comments and recommendations are based on this draft report with a view to defining and clarifying the conditions under which Tasers might be deployed and used in the Island.

5. CALL FOR EVIDENCE

12. On 29th March 2012 the Panel issued a public call for evidence which included an online survey which was carried out throughout April on the Scrutiny website. This survey underlined the public interest in this matter resulting in a total of 428 responses, with a great deal of participants leaving written comments.
13. A summary of the outcome of this survey is included as an appendix to this report and a paper including all the online comments received is available on the Scrutiny website under the heading of Research (www.scrutiny.gov.je ).
14. The Panel received four written submissions from representative groups (Jersey Human Rights Association, Jersey Rights Group, Amnesty International and the Jersey Police Association). Fourteen members of the public also made written submissions. In addition seven telephone calls and fourteen short messages by email or post were received by the Scrutiny Office. All submissions and comments are available on the Scrutiny website.
15. On 27th April 2012 the Panel held public hearings with representatives of the following groups:

• Jersey Humans Rights Group
• Amnesty International Jersey Group
• The States of Jersey Police Association
• The Honorary Police

16. The Panel also held a public hearing on the same date with the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Officer of Police, who was accompanied by the Chief Firearms Instructor, States of Jersey Police. Transcripts of all hearings are available on the Scrutiny website.

6. TASER – KEY FACTS

17. The use of Taser is intended to provide an additional and less lethal option for police when dealing with violent or threatening situations. Taser is used to resolve potentially dangerous situations, which may otherwise necessitate a firearms response.
18. The name Taser' is an acronym which stands for Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle'. Taser technology is used by police agencies in 45 countries around the world. Taser International Inc. is the world's largest manufacturer of conducted energy device (CEDs) and only devices by this company are currently authorised for use by police forces in England and Wales. For the purposes of this report all CEDs are referred to as Tasers.
19. The Taser is a single shot weapon designed to temporarily incapacitate a subject through the use of an electrical current, which temporarily interferes with the body's neuromuscular system. The normal reaction of a person exposed to the discharge of a Taser is the temporary loss of some voluntary muscle control resulting in the subject falling to the ground or freezing' on the spot.
20. The Taser delivers its electrical charge in a five second cycle (which can be broken or repeated). Once the cycle ends or is broken, the direct incapacitation effect ceases and the subject may recover immediately and resume their previous behaviour. On some occasions the discharge may be ineffective or partially effective.[10] The five second cycle may be repeated in these circumstances; however, repeated discharges should be used with caution as repeated use may increase the risk to the subject of strong muscle contractions which may impair breathing[11].
21. The Taser is laser-sighted and uses cartridges attached to the end of a cartridge bay. The cartridges project a pair of barbs or darts attached to insulated wires. The maximum range of the device is currently 21 feet (6.4 metres, this being the length

of wires that carry the current and electrically connect the barbs to the weapon. The device delivers a sequence of high voltage pulses of very short duration through the wires.[12]

22. The term use' includes any of the following actions: drawing, sparking up (also known as arcing'), aiming (also known as red-dotting'), discharging of barbs and application in drive stun' mode.
23. The use of Taser in drive stun mode' is where the device is applied in direct contact to the subject without firing the barbs. This method of use can be achieved with either no cartridge fitted or when a discharges cartridge is still attached[13]. This mode of use is controversial as it causes pain without incapacitating the subject.. Amnesty International has expressed particular concern about Drive Stun, noting that " the potential to use TASERs in drive-stun mode where they are used as 'pain compliance' tools when individuals are already effectively in custody and the capacity to inflict multiple and prolonged shocks, renders the weapons inherently open to abuse."[14]
24. The two models of Taser weapons authorised for use by police forces in England and Wales are the M26 Taser and the X26 Taser. There is an alternative Taser shotgun, the X12 model, which fires probes in an XREP bullet and can be shot from up to 20 metres away as opposed to the 6 metres need to employ the M26 or X26 Taser. The X12 model was used by Northumbria Police Force in the Raoul Moat incident in July 2010 but has not actually been authorised for use by the police in England and Wales.[15] The Panel understands that there is no intention to introduce the X12 model into Jersey.
25. Police forces acknowledge the fact that Taser does carry a risk of death, albeit a low or very low risk compared to the use of conventional firearms. In 2007 the Policing Board of Northern Ireland Human Rights report described Taser as

potentially lethal' rather than lethal or non-lethal.[16] The report said that there was a clear distinction between a Taser and conventional firearm: Taser cannot sensibly be treated as the equivalent to the use of lethal equipment such as conventional firearms, which obviously carry a much higher risk of death'.

26. Price waterhouse Coopers (PWC) was commissioned in 2004 by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to undertake an independent evaluation of the operational trial prior to the introduction of Tasers. PWC concluded that: evidence suggests that Taser has been effective in preventing incidents from escalating to the point where lethal force is required. In many incidents, the threat of Taser – rather than its actual use – has made the individual become compliant'.[17]
27. Tasers have been permitted for use by the police in England and Wales since 2004, following an operational trial carried out in 2003. Policy and guidance on the use of Taser is governed by ACPO. The latest ACPO policy statement is provided on the Scrutiny website.[18]
28. Tasers, unlike CS spray and ASP[19] batons, are not issued to all police officers. ACPO policy clearly sets out that Taser can only be used by specially trained officers.  
29. The Taser is classified as prohibited weapon under Article 33 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000. As such it cannot legally be carried by members of the public and there are strict limitations on who may buy and sell them and how they should be stored or transported. Article 33 (2) allows police officers to have prohibited weapons in their possession while acting in the course of their duties. The Panel understands that it is not strictly necessary for the Minister to seek authorisation from the States Assembly for the introduction of Tasers for the use by the States of Jersey Police; however, the Minister has chosen to seek endorsement from the States due to the controversial nature of this proposal.

Wider deployment of Tasers in England and Wales

30. Initially the use of Tasers in England and Wales was restricted to Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) in circumstances where a firearms authority had been granted. In 2007 the Home Office announced that authorised police firearms officers in England and Wales would be able to use Taser in a greater set of circumstances

- in operations or incidents where the use of firearms was not authorised, but where they were facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves or the subject'.[20]

31. This has led to an increasing use of Taser. In 2007 the Policing Board of Northern Ireland Human Rights report, after examining report summaries of Taser use in England, Scotland and Wales, noted that Taser was being discharged on more occasions than firearms and in circumstances where conventional firearms would not necessarily have been discharged. The report commented: In our opinion, it is unlikely that the discharge of conventional weapons would have been justified in the vast majority of cases in which Taser was used. That is not, of itself surprising. If the use of Taser is lawful where its use is immediately necessary to prevent or reduce the likelihood of recourse to lethal force, one would expect Taser to be used more often than lethal force.'[21]

32. From November 2008, the use of Taser was also extended to some front line officers. These officers are Specially Trained Units' (STUs) and must spend a minimum of 18 hours in initial training and attend annual refresher' courses for 6 hours. It has been reported that one third of the use of Tasers in England and Wales is now by non-firearms officers.[22]

33. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) monitored this change of policy in the use of Tasers and commented: Our conclusion when the wider roll-out was announced was that the level of public complaints about the use of Taser was  

low, especially when compared with the number of instances where its use has saved lives or prevented injuries. But we are very aware that the use of Taser carries the risk of misuse, and the public will rightly be concerned about this. We have therefore asked all forces to refer any complaints about the use of Taser to us. We also encourage all forces to explain to the public the circumstances in which Taser might be deployed, and that people have a right to complain if they feel the use of force was excessive. [23]

34. Every incident in which Taser is deployed – whether it is discharged or not – is recorded by the local police force and a report sent through to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office Scientific Development Branch to monitor.[24]
35. The Home Office publish figures annually for the use of Tasers in England and Wales. The latest figures were published in April 2011 showing that Taser had been used over 8,500 times since introduction April 2004 up to March 2010[25].

Complaints regarding the use of Taser

36. All complaints made to police forces involving the use of Tasers in England and Wales are now referred to the IPCC as a matter of course[26]. Complaints regarding the use of force by the police are not usually required to be referred to the IPCC, unless death or serious injury has resulted from police contact. However, following the IPCC's role in the Home Office trial of the extension of Tasers to STUs, the IPCC has taken this step in order to assure the public that independent investigations would take place into complaints.

In November 2008 the IPCC published a report giving a breakdown of cases seen by the IPCC between 1 April 2004 and 30 September 2008 showing that 92 matters had been referred to the IPCC during that period.[27]

37. The IPCC received 16 complaints and 50 referrals in 2009 and 23 complaints and 96 referrals in 2010 regarding police forces in England and Wales.[28]
38. Examples of complaints which the IPCC have investigated include:

• Jeffrey Evans and his son Geoffrey who were subjected to a Taser when they resisted arrest at their home in August 2009. They alleged that the police had assaulted them. Mr. Evans complained that a barb had been embedded in his head. The IPCC found that found "the officers acted properly and used reasonable force to arrest" the men. It added: "The investigation also found that Geoffrey Evans was posing a threat to police officers and that he was Tasered to prevent him causing injury and to enable him to be arrested."[29]
• A policeman who Tasered a man at a street party in Cornwall was subsequently suspended from operating the weapon. Mr Naumczyk, then 19, from Falmouth, was shot with the Taser and later cautioned by police for being drunk and disorderly at the party. He claimed it was not necessary for police to use the Taser. Officers at the time said the Tasering had stopped some incidents at the party from escalating and resulting in public disorder. The IPCC allowed the force to deal with the matter internally. Devon and Cornwall Police said the officer had now been retrained in the weapon's use.[30]

Taser and the risk of death or injury

39. Taser International Inc. claims that more than 89,000 lives have been saved from potential death or serious injury using Taser devices.[31] A number of research
40. reports have found that the introduction of Tasers has been associated with a decrease in the number of injuries sustained by police and suspects and a decrease in the police use of lethal force during arrests.[32]
41. Nevertheless, the use of Tasers is controversial due to the incidence of associated deaths and injuries following the discharge of the device.  In February 2012 Amnesty International announced that the number of people in the USA who had died following the use of Taser had reached 500. Amnesty examined data on hundreds of deaths following Taser use, including autopsy reports in 98 cases and studies on the safety of such devices. Among the cases reviewed, 90 per cent of those who died were unarmed. Many of the victims were subjected to multiple shocks. Most of the other deaths mentioned in the report were attributed to other causes. However, medical examiners have listed Tasers as a cause or contributing factor in more than 60 deaths, and in a number of other cases the exact cause of death is unknown.[33]
42. Amnesty also examined the incidence of deaths in Canada following the use of Taser.[34] Between 2001 and 2007 15 people died, nearly all of whom were subject to multiple Taser shocks and in most cases other techniques were applied including pepper spray, physical force and restraint holds.
43. Proof of a direct connexion between a Taser shock and the death of the subject has only rarely been established. In one case in the USA in 2008 a link between the death of a subject and the multiple use of Taser was established.[35] A high profile case in Canada in 2007 led to the Braidwood Inquiry, which concluded that death in

this case was contributed to by the physiological stress imposed by multiple applications of Taser discharge.[36]

44. There have been three cases of deaths in the UK following the use of Taser:  

• In one case in 2006, Brian Loan died three days after exposure to the Taser; the Coroner found that the death was linked to profound atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and the Taser was deemed not to have been a causal factor.[37]
• In August 2011Philip Hulme s, 53, was hit by a Taser after refusing to leave his terraced house in Over Hulton, near Bolton. The police were called after he locked himself inside his house while in possession of a knife and began to harm himself. After failing to talk him out of the building, officers are understood to have entered and used the Taser gun. They then discovered that Hulme s had stabbed himself in the abdomen. He died half an hour later.
• Dale Burns, a bodybuilder in his 20s died in Cumbria after being shot with a Taser by police during his arrest. Police were called following reports of a man causing a disturbance. A Taser was used during the arrest and the man later complained of feeling unwell. He was taken to hospital, where he died.[38]

45. The IPCC investigations are ongoing at the time of this report[39].
46. The potential lethal effect of Taser remains a controversial subject and scientific and medical research is not yet conclusive on the links between the use of Taser and subsequent deaths.[40]
47. The Defence Scientific Advisory Council Sub-Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL) has been responsible for providing independent medical advice in the UK. In 2002 DOMILL advised:

• The risk of death from a primary injury (immediate or delayed consequences of electrical current in the body) was low';
• The risk of life threatening or other serious injuries, such as loss of an eye, was very low'. But serious burns could result from the combustion of flammable solvents on the subject's clothing if ignited by the use of Taser;
• Falls from Tasers might result in abrasions, scratch and minor lacerations and minor trauma might be caused by the penetration of the skin by the barbs;
• There was no experimental evidence that pro-arrhythmic factors (such as drug taking) specifically increased the susceptibility of the heart to Tasers sufficient to cause an arrhythmic event. However, there was sufficient indication that excited, intoxicated individuals or those with pre-existing heart disease could be more prone to adverse effects from Taser.
• Overall the risk of life-threatening or serious injuries from Taser appeared to be very low'.[41]

48. In 2004 DOMILL updated their advice on the risk of Taser on drug-impaired individuals and recommended that officers should be aware that the risk of any adverse response in the aftermath of Taser deployment might be higher and accordingly they should be vigilant of any unusual behaviour displayed by the apprehended person that may signal the need for early intervention'.[42]
49. On the question of the vulnerability of those with cardiac pacemakers, DOMILL concluded that the effects of Taser on the function of the pacemaker were likely to be limited and unlikely to be permanent.[43]
50. In March 2005 DOMILL compared the M26 Taser and the X26 Taser and concluded that the risk of a life-threatening event arising from the use of X26 Taser was less than the already low risk of such an event from the M26 Advanced Taser'.[44]
51. DOMILL acknowledged that there was a lack of evidence about the risks of Taser use to more vulnerable groups. The potential vulnerability of some groups of people to Taser use remains a controversial area. The Policing Board of Northern Ireland Human Rights report noted the high percentage of cases in which Tasers have been used in England, Scotland and Wales against the very groups that have been repeatedly identified as vulnerable: Our analysis of the use of Taser since it has been more generally available suggests that 57% of Taser subjects were under the influence of alcohol, 27% under the influence of drugs and that 49% may have either have been suffering from mental illness or have had mental health issues'.[45]

52. In April 2011 DOMILL confirmed their view regarding the safety of Taser: DOMILL remains of the view that the risk of serious adverse medical outcome from exposure to the Taser is low,  provided the system is employed by trained users in accordance with ACPO policy and guidance. This view is confirmed by the consistently low incidence of reports of adverse outcomes arising from use of the Taser system in the UK, together with the relatively low rates of reported adverse outcomes internationally.'[46]

ACPO Guidance on Risk factors

53. ACPO Guidance identifies and provides advice on specific risk factors to officers authorised to use Tasers, as summarised below:

• Occasions will arise where it is necessary to use the Taser on a person who is exhibiting violent behaviour and who is also suffering from a mental disorder or illness. Where it is possible to discuss options with mental health professionals this should be considered.
• In pre-planned operations such discussions could form part of any briefing for the event. Consultation with friends, relatives etc., who are likely to know the person well, may also assist in deciding on the most appropriate use of force response. Consultation with Health Authorities and Social Services in this respect will form part of the implementation plan.

• Where it becomes apparent that the subject has an existing medical condition or is under the influence of drugs, assessment of these additional risk factors should be made in determining the appropriate option.
• There is a risk of flammability if someone has already been sprayed with an incapacitant containing a flammable solvent. Clearly, there is also a risk of flammability where the subject's clothing is doused with other flammable liquids.
• Further risk has been identified from use of Taser in proximity to a number of explosive formulations, which are sensitive to electrical discharge. Other explosive materials may also be sensitive to electrical discharge, depending on how the material is packaged, its age, storage conditions and other factors.
• The Taser should not be utilised in an environment where, due to the presence of a flammable substance in the atmosphere or escaping gas, its use is likely to result in an even more hazardous situation.
• There is clearly a possibility of some secondary injury to the Tasered subject, caused by falling and striking a hard surface. In this regard the risk of concussive brain injury as a result of the head hitting a rigid surface is considered especially pertinent. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the immediate environment and to assessing any additional risk factors.
• Officers should avoid prolonged, extended, uninterrupted discharges or extensive multiple discharges whenever practicable in order to minimise the potential for over-exertion of the subject or potential impairment of full ability to breathe over a prolonged time period.
• There is a specific risk of injury to the eye through penetration of a barb. Barb penetration in the neck or head may also increase the level of injury. For this reason the Taser should not be aimed so as to strike the head or neck of a

subject unless this is unavoidable. The laser sight should not intentionally be aimed at the eyes of the subject.[47]

Increasing use of Taser

54. There is evidence that the police in England and Wales have increasingly resorted to use of Tasers in recent years. In December 2011 an investigation by Channel 4 News, based on a freedom of information request for the latest figures for the use of Tasers, revealed that at least 30 of the 43 police forces throughout England and Wales had discharged the Taser more times in 2011 than the previous year. Forces collectively fired Tasers more than 1,500 times in the year ending March 2011, 70 per cent more than the previous year, with the average force increase being 130 per cent.[48]
55. In November 2011 the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in the wake of the stabbing of four officers in Harrow, north-west London, said I think to have more availability than we have now is essential.' He confirmed that the force was considering options which included having Tasers available as a vehicle-borne option' - in every police car or in response cars - so that they could be deployed more quickly.[49]
56. The Metropolitan Police Federation called for a fast response Taser capability throughout the force and said that there was mystification and real concern over the Home Office's refusal to allow its deployment to anyone other than specialist officers.'[50]

7. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

57. There are now a considerable number of studies into the police use of Tasers. During its review the Scrutiny Panel has consulted the following:

Policing Board of Northern Ireland Human Rights Report[51]

58. The Northern Ireland Policing Board commissioned a report on the human rights implications of the proposed introduction of Tasers into Northern Ireland. The report, published in May 2007, is a comprehensive review of the legal framework, the operational need for Tasers, medical implications, policy and guidance for the use of Taser.
59. The report supported the use of Taser on the basis that: It will be difficult to justify the use of conventional firearms as absolutely necessary' where less life threatening equipment is available and should have been used'.[52]
60. The report found that Taser should be treated as potentially lethal equipment. Its use is compatible with Article 2 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998 only within strict limits. The report stated: Taser can only lawfully be used where its use is absolutely necessary to protect individuals from lawful and serious violence'.[53]
61. The report goes on to state that the proper test for the use of Taser is when its use is immediately necessary to prevent or reduce the likelihood of recourse to lethal force (e.g. conventional firearms). This is a test that is just below that for the use of lethal force (such as conventional firearms), but a much stricter test than that which applies for other uses of (non-lethal) force. It means that Taser can be used in circumstances where there is a threat to life or a threat to serious injury, but that  

threat has not quite reached the threshold where lethal force (such as conventional firearms) could be justified.'[54]

62. The report makes further recommendations, in particular:

• Police Officers authorised to use Tasers should receive clear and precise instructions as to the manner and circumstances in which they should make use of Taser[55]; and
• As for planning and control, the obligation is clear. The relevant authorities should plan and control operations in which Taser might be used so as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to its use.[56]

63. The authors of the report were not satisfied that ACPO policy was sufficiently clear and considered that it might accommodate cases which would not satisfy the test for the use of Taser set out above.[57]
64. In addition, the authors recommended that the Policing Board should require the Police Service of Northern Ireland to provide clearer evidence of a capability gap requiring the introduction of Taser before its proposal is progressed. That evidence should take account of the test for the use of Taser set out above.[58]

Stunning Trends in Shocking Crimes: a comprehensive analysis of Taser weapons[59]

65. This study, which describes an American context, provides a comprehensive medical, legal, and policy analysis of Tasers. As part of this analysis, the benefits and potential risks of Tasers are weighed to determine what role the weapon should have in law enforcement and society. Issues such as officer and suspect safety, unknown health risks, training requirements, deployment protocols, police liability and accountability, government regulation, public acceptance, and comparisons of other non-lethal force are discussed in this paper

66. Section VII provides recommendations on the role Tasers should have in law enforcement:

• It recognises that all law enforcement agencies using Tasers have seen a dramatic decrease in police and suspect injuries
• There are legitimate concerns about the safety of Tasers
• Tasers may have adverse effects on individuals under the influence of drugs or with underlying heart conditions
• Taser's unique capabilities of incapacitating suspects, without any threat of harm to the police officer or identifiable injury to the suspect, make using force more attractive
• If this power goes unchecked and unregulated, law enforcement officers may increasingly overuse Tasers in situations that do not warrant any force, or where traditional, less painful methods, such as dialogue and empty hand controls, would suffice
• The majority of the risks and concerns can be mitigated by increased training, detailed use-of-force polices, and government regulated standards
• Determinations about training requirements, medical evaluations, legal constraints, operational protocols, and use-of-force records should be written into detailed policy
• In addition, the policy should address key issues and concerns associated with Tasers such as the number of permissible discharges; whether to use Tasers on fleeing suspects; whether to use Tasers as a tool for compliance; whether to use Tasers on persons with known or visible health impairments, such as drug intoxication or heart disease; whether to use Tasers on mentally challenged persons; and whether to use Tasers on vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and pregnant women
• The policy should also include a force continuum designed specifically for Tasers, which provides guidelines and hypothetical scenarios on when the deployment of Tasers may be appropriate
• The use-of-force continuum should focus on using the minimum amount of force necessary to obtain lawful objectives.

Home Affairs Select Committee

67. The Home Affairs Select Committee has produced two reports examining aspects of Taser use but has not looked at the use of Tasers in policing in general.

• Policing of the G20 protests, report dated 9th June 2009

As part of a review of the G20 protests the Committee conducted a one-off review into Tasers. The Committee supported the use of Tasers by the police as an alternative to lethal force' but recommended caution about extending its use beyond firearm officers to some front-line officers and commented: The decision to extend the deployment of Conducted Energy Devices to some non- firearms officers, and the training they receive, should be kept under review. The use of this weapon on a general scale poses many issues regarding public safety and more widespread use of Tasers would also represent a fundamental shift between the police and the general public. British policing is based on consent and face-to-face engagement, the use of Taser has the potential to erode that relationship and create a rift between the police and the policed. Furthermore, we would not endorse any move to authorise its wider use beyond dealing with a violent threat. [60]

• Police Use of Tasers: report dated 7th March 2011:

This short report focused on concerns regarding the procurement of a new form of Taser weapon (X12 model) and its use against Raul Moat. It did not examine broader issues regarding the use of Tasers but noted that the circumstances in which Tasers can be used, the prevalence of their use, the training given to officers in their use and the extent to which they are justifiable alternatives to other methods of restraint are all important issues which would merit further investigation'[61]

Braidwood Commission on Conducted Energy Weapon Use

68. A Commission of Enquiry was set up to enquire into the use of conducted energy weapons by regulated law enforcement agencies in British Columbia, Canada, following the death of a man at Vancouver Airport in 2007. Thomas R. Braidwood QC reviewed the policies, training and use of Tasers in British Columbia as well as the medical risks. Mr. Braidwood said that he was guided by several principles –

• that the police must be given appropriate tools to do their job;
• that the police must use the least force necessary to manage the risk; and
• that the use of force must be proportionate to the seriousness of the situation.

69. He concluded that on balance our society is better off with these weapons in use than without them'.[62]
70. In relation to the use of conducted energy weapons on emotionally disturbed people Mr. Braidwood noted: The unanimous view of mental health presenters was that the best practice is to de-escalate the agitation, which can best be achieved through the application of recognized crisis intervention techniques. Conversely, the worst possible response is to aggravate or escalate the crisis, such as by deploying a conducted energy weapon and/or using force to physically restrain the subject. It is accepted that there may be some extreme circumstances, however rare, when crisis intervention techniques will not be effective in de-escalating the crisis. But even then, there are steps that officers can take to mitigate the risk of deployment.[63] He recommended that a curriculum for crisis intervention should be approved for training all officers authorised to use conducted energy weapons.
71. Mr. Braidwood recommended that the police should be prohibited from deploying Tasers unless the subject's behaviour met one of the following thresholds:

• the subject is causing bodily harm; or
• the officer is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the subject's behaviour will imminently cause bodily harm.

Even if the threshold set out above was met, an officer should be prohibited from deploying a conducted energy weapon unless the officer was satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that:

• no lesser force option has been, or will be, effective in eliminating the risk of bodily harm; and
• de-escalation and/or crisis intervention techniques have not been or will not be effective in eliminating the risk of bodily harm.[64]

Amnesty International Taser Campaign

72. Amnesty International has campaigned against indiscriminate use of Tasers by the police. The campaign has drawn attention to the number of fatalities associated with the use of Taser and the potential for misuse.
73. Amnesty International Programmes Director Susan Lee commenting on the situation in the USA said: dozens and possibly scores of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force being used. This is unacceptable and stricter guidelines for their use are now imperative. What is most disturbing about the police use of Tasers is that the majority of those who later died were not a serious threat when they were shocked by the police.'[65]
74. In the UK Amnesty has acknowledged that the practice of the police is different to the USA as the use of Tasers is strictly limited to circumstances where there is a serious threat of death or serious injury to participants, and only by specially trained officers who undergo an intensive and on-going rigorous training. Nevertheless Amnesty has concerns that the ACPO Guidelines for police Taser use which state that Tasers can only be deployed during non-firearms situations involving violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves or the subjects' are "slightly fuzzy". Amnesty believes that this is such a wide definition that Tasers could be drawn in all kinds of cases where police would have used traditional methods, such as negotiation or batons.

75. Oliver Sprague, Amnesty International's UK Arms Programme Director, fears Tasers represent a "slippery slope" in which police become over-reliant on this quick technical fix, which makes them less engaged with – and more likely to alienate – the people they are policing. While "red-dotting" might be a useful deterrent, Sprague points out that threatening to use a Taser is as serious as firing it. If you can get instant compliance by just pointing a Taser then there's a strong argument for drawing it immediately,' he says. Suddenly, policing by consent becomes policing by compliance.[66]
76. Mr. Sprague said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee: We have always supported specialist firearms officers having access to Taser. We believe there may well be a case for widening Taser deployment beyond firearms officers for incidents of severe, life-threatening violence, but we do have severe reservations about the widespread roll-out of Taser when the guidelines are not clear enough about when they can be used and the training that they are given is not of the level of a firearms standard. That is why we say that specialist units should be trained to a firearms standard.'[67]
77. Mr. Sprague went on to comment about the level of training given to officers and insisted that it was essential that the high existing standards for firearms officers should be maintained in the training given to the STUs: We were very privileged to observe the Metropolitan Police training of Taser. What I would say is that that training is extremely intensive and it is challenging and, importantly, officers do fail it, not just for proficiency in the weapon, but also the scenarios they are placed in and whether it was appropriate in those scenarios to use a Taser. What we would be concerned about is the difference between that and what the firearms officers had previously undergone, which was routine scenario-based training where they are constantly placed in these real-life situations and evaluated on their use of force within those situations, particularly the risks to vulnerable groups: people under the  

influence of medication or drugs or underlying health issues. We believe that such scenario-based training is absolutely vital to ensure it is proportional'.[68]

Public attitudes towards Tasers – results from an opinion poll

78. In 2010 the UK Home Office commissioned a survey of public attitudes towards Tasers. The survey explored public awareness of Tasers; support for and trust in the police to use Tasers; and situations in which it is deemed acceptable to use a Taser. The key findings of this survey were as follows:

• Over three quarters of respondents had heard of Tasers (76%)
• The majority of respondents supported the police using Tasers (71%)
• Nearly three quarters of respondents had either a great deal or a fair amount of trust that their local police used Tasers responsibly (73%)
• Respondents thought that it would be most acceptable to fire Tasers on people behaving violently or suspected of carrying a weapon (50% and 48% thought it would always be justified)
• Around half of respondents said that they would feel safer if more police were equipped with Tasers (50%)[69]

The use of Tasers in Guernsey and the Isle of Man

79. The Panel asked the Police Forces in Guernsey and the Isle of Man for a report on the use of Tasers in their Islands. Both forces had obtained Tasers prior to the imposition of the ban on exports imposed by the UK government and therefore had some experience of the use of Taser in the context of a small island community.
80. These reports indicate that their use in both Islands has been restricted to Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs).

81. Taser has been discharged twice in the Isle of Man since 2005. The first discharge was ineffective, which was apparently due to the thick clothing worn by the offender; for the second discharge the device was fired but not fully cycled as it was identified that the offender was compliant, having already had two broken ankles, from falling from a height whilst trying to flee the Police.
82. Tasers  have  been  regularly  drawn  in  the  Isle of  Man  (32  times  in the  period between January 2010 and March 2012) but there are no other instances of red dotting and/or spark up.
83. In the Isle of Man Tasers are currently only deployed along with conventional firearms. However, they are considering extending the use of Taser to Specially Trained Units. Guernsey adopted the change of policy implemented in the UK in 2007 which has allowed Taser devices to be issued outside of incidents which meet the criteria for the deployment of firearms; however, it remains only AFOs who are classified in the use of Tasers.

Table 1: Use of Taser in Guernsey

70 Of the 17 times Taser was issued 4 of the occasions were alongside conventional firearms, on

the other 13 occasions it was issued outside a full firearms authority

71 Of the 16 times Taser was issued 10 of the occasions were alongside conventional firearms, on

the other 6 occasions it was issued outside a full firearms authority.

72 Of the 41 times Taser was issued 37 of the occasions were alongside conventional firearms, on

the other 4 occasions it was issued outside a full firearms authority.

73 To date (16/3/2012) Taser has been issued on a total of 4 occasions. All of these issues have

been in conjunction with the issue of conventional firearms.

84. Table 1 shows the occasions on which Tasers have been issued/used by the Guernsey Police. Taser has been issued 104 times in Guernsey in the period from 2006 to March 2012; of these deployments it was actually drawn on only 8 occasions and the suspect was red-dotted' on three occasions. Taser has been discharged only on one occasion in Guernsey since their first introduction in 2006. The event occurred in 2006. Taser was discharged against a male subject threatening self harm and making threats to kill officers. Taser incapacitated the subject leading to a successful outcome for the operation and the safe arrest of the subject without significant injury.[70]
85. These figures show a significant rise in the number of authorisations and deployment of Taser – 41 in 2011 compared to a range of between 5 and 17 occasions in the previous 5 years.
86. The Scrutiny Panel requested an explanation for this increase and was informed that it was linked to a review of the force's strategic threat and risk assessment as a result of which firearms had been deployed routinely at a large number of events in the Island. Following the review the decision was taken to authorise the deployment of an armed response vehicle, as an operational contingency, at large scale public events and at other times whereby evidence suggested a possible increased demand for these resources. The increase in the number of firearms deployments has consequently seen a rise in the number of times on which Taser is deployed. The use of Taser outside a full firearms authorisation has in fact decreased (13 in 2009, 6 in 2010 and 4 in 2012). [71]

8. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jersey Human Rights Group

87. The Jersey Human Rights Group (JHRG) questioned whether Tasers should from part of the weaponry of the States of Jersey Police, fearing that there would be a tendency for increasing use of Taser: If there is a belief that Tasers are less harmful than a firearm then are they more likely to be used at the outset of a conflict than as a last resort?'
88. The JHRG said that resorting to forceful weapons such as Taser rather than attempting to resolve aggressive situations could lead to a reduction in respect for the Police in the Island: Policing is an art and police officers who over react to incidents do untold harm to their image and esteem and to public confidence. Policing is also a risk business and from time to time police officers will be confronted with difficult people who challenge their authority. However it is how they overcome those difficulties that will earn the public's respect.'
89. The JHRG summarised their position as follows:

• Tasers clearly weaken the concept that "the police are the public and the public are the police".
• The JHRG has no knowledge of the frequency of events in which their use would have been justified, but perceive this to be very low. They would like to see a detailed review of, say, 6 incidents in Jersey in which Tasers could have been used with benefit.
• The JHRG regards peaceful conflict resolution as the first priority and is concerned that the police may, quite quickly, see Tasers as a quick and easy alternative.
• The cost of the Tasers and of the training in their use will be material and the JHRG would like to see the business case for that expenditure.
• The JHRG thinks that it is likely that more training in peaceful conflict resolution might well generate a higher return.

Amnesty International Jersey

90. The position of Amnesty International Jersey (referred to hereafter as Amnesty Jersey) reflected reports and media briefings from Amnesty International UK. Amnesty Jersey believes that Tasers are inherently open to abuse as they are easy to carry, easy to use and can inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks'.
91. Amnesty Jersey referred to studies carried out by Amnesty UK into instances of abuse in the UK and abroad. For example, in Nottingham (June 2009) mobile phone footage caught how police officers shocked a man with a Taser for the second time after he was already lying on the ground and appeared to be under control by the four surrounding police officers. After examining this case, the IPCC found the police officers were acting proportionately' to the situation (Feb 2010). However Amnesty UK raised concerns about the lack of clarity within existing police guidelines as to determining which situations were appropriate to apply the Taser.
92. Amnesty Jersey expressed concern about the introduction of Tasers into the local police force when recorded levels of violent crime were relatively low compared to situations in the UK: Questions have to be raised about the necessity of such weapons in the Island when crime levels are so low and officers are rarely assaulted let alone put in life-threatening situations where firearms would need to be deployed. For example, a pilot to equip beat officers in Rutherglen (Scotland) with Tasers came about because 4000 officers were being assaulted every year. Proportionally, the figure in Jersey is most likely nowhere close to this and does not justify the introduction of a speculatively-safe weapon into the Island.'
93. Amnesty Jersey set out the following series of guidelines which they suggested contained their main concerns and were relevant to the protection of human rights if Tasers were to be deployed in Jersey:

• Taser use should either be suspended pending further independent studies; or
• Have their use limited to circumstances where officers are faced with an imminent threat of death or very serious injury (a potential loss of life) which cannot be contained by less extreme options (in accordance with Principle 9 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms).

• Tasers should be treated as an alternative to lethal force;
• Officers carrying Tasers are trained to firearms standards on an on-going basis. Training must be consistent with UN standards on the use of force before such weapons are deployed;
• Roll out must be highly restricted and then only to specially trained officers;
• The Home Office has demonstrated how the use of Tasers will be consistent with its obligations under international human rights guidelines and what policies and procedures are in place to prevent misuse of electro shock weapons. This should include regular conceptual and operational training on international human rights standards, including the right to life (Article 2), the absolute prohibition against torture (Article 3) under the Human Rights Act 2008 and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;
• There should be strict guidelines to avoid repeated, multiple or prolonged shocks as well as shocks whilst someone is in custody. Such actions constitute torture and contravene Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the prohibition of torture.; The use of Tasers on the following "at risk" people who are at the greatest risk of death should be avoided in all circumstances unless they pose an imminent threat to life. All officers should be trained to be aware of the following groups: children, persons of small stature; pregnant women; the elderly; people with heart disease, pacemakers or other electrical implants; emotionally disturbed people or those with mental disabilities; those suffering from epilepsy, asthma and other respiratory problems; people under the influence of drugs or are highly agitated, delirious and/or struggling violently; those who are obviously physically frail or poor of health
• The arbitrary or abusive use of Tasers should be punished as a criminal offence in law. Such treatment of a potentially lethal weapon breaches articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the right to life and the prohibition of torture.
• Each department should provide a detailed breakdown of its Taser use in regular, publicly available reports.

Amnesty Jersey stated that, as far as they were aware, none of the above had been spelt out and therefore the organisation continued to oppose the widespread deployment of the weapon. (Note: Each of these points has been considered by the Panel and has been integrated into its own findings and recommendations)  

The Jersey Rights Association

94. The Jersey Rights Association (JRA) supported the introduction of Tasers into Jersey but only under very strict written terms and conclusions. Then JRA believes that Tasers should only be used in circumstances where firearms are permitted to be used: The grounds for use arise in circumstances where the SOJP currently deploy guns in response to a reported incident. It is clearly preferable to incapacitate an individual rather than to shoot and either seriously injure him or kill him. There are both benefits and negatives here to the alternative use of Tasers. The SOJP could resort much quicker to using a Taser (as opposed to a gun) because the outcome is less severe. We have also looked at the risk of harm to the SOJP and the possible psychological trauma that an officer may suffer if he kills an innocent suspect'.
95. The JRA considered that a minimalist approach should be adopted: In other words what is the least intervention required. Tasers should never be a first line tool to be used against individuals'. The JRA said that a clear line of permitted use should be set out and suggested the following occasions when Tasers should not be used:

• For crowd control;
• For typical street violence;
• Where there is an affray involving groups of people;
• Even when the group of people in the affray uses non-lethal weapons;
• An individual holding a lethal weapon but does not pose an immediate threat to the SOJP or others;
• It is a much more difficult question if the person poses an immediate threat to his own welfare. We are unable to reach a conclusion on this outcome; and
• When an individual has his back to the SOJP or is walking away.

96. Finally, the JRA insisted that if any extended use of Taser was sought, then that matter should return to the States chamber for a full debate. It should not be left to the SOJP to self-regulate use and to extend the use of Tasers'.

States of Jersey Police Association

97. The States of Jersey Police Association (SOJPA), which represents the interests of approximately 233 local Police Officers, was unanimous in its support for Tasers which it believed was the first practical and effective supplement to an armed response by Police Officers. . The introduction of Tasers to trained firearms officers must be seen as positive action in the interests of preventing serious injury to any of my membership as well as members of the public. The States of Jersey Police Association believe that the employer has a responsibility to protect its staff, providing them with the best equipment to protect not only themselves but the public whom we serve'.
98. The SOJPA believed that the public had not fully understood the fact that the introduction of Tasers was, for the present time for highly trained firearms officers only and would only be used in exceptional circumstances: The bobby walking up and down King Street or standing at the weighbridge on a Friday night will not be issued with Taser'.
99. The SOJPA submission added: To suggest my membership would abuse the use of the Taser or cannot be trusted to use them correctly in accordance with ACPO guidelines and authorities as some have suggested during this debate, is, in this Association's view quite simply offensive'.

Written Submissions from Individuals

100. The Panel received a large number of submissions from members of the public. Key

points are summarised below.

101. Tony Bellows provided an extensive examination of recent incidents and research

into the use of Tasers. He referred to the numerous reports, in the media and human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, of fatalities where people have received Taser shocks, in addition, to reports of police officers deploying Tasers on unarmed, non-compliant, or disturbed individuals who did not pose a threat to themselves or others. Mr. Bellows identified part of the problem as "the quick fix", where the Taser is deployed without adequate – and costly – training, and is seen as an instrument of first resort, rather than one of last resort, because it achieves results quickly'.[72]

102. Mr Bellows also referred to the development in the UK whereby the use of Tasers

has been expanded to more widespread use by general members of the police force and not just the armed response units. He believed that this second phase' had the potential for fatalities, and for indiscriminate use of Tasers. This is a "slippery slope" of the use of Tasers, and the anecdotal evidence emerging is that away from the strict controls of trained firearms officers, there is a significant risk of making mistakes and harming members of the general public'.[73]

103. Mr. Bellows drew the following conclusions:

• The use of Tasers as a weapon of choice in place of firearms by a trained firearms unit could significantly reduce fatalities and I would recommend its use.
• The "Phase Two" deployment of Tasers by non-firearms officers for situations where firearms use would not be deployed poses significant risk to the general public, and the use of the slang term "sparking up" illustrates a kind of attitude that we do not want to see in Jersey. I would not recommend "phase two" under any circumstances.
• If Tasers are introduced in Jersey, legislation should restrict its use to trained firearms officers in situations where firearms would be deployed.

104. Any change to a "phase two" wider deployment should not be a matter for

operational consideration, but should require full States approval to change legislation. Without this safeguard, there are no controls by the States on a "slippery slope" in the use of Tasers.

105. Mr. M. Dun believed that Taser abuse was almost inevitable the opportunity to

covertly bully or punish, deliberately or otherwise, is an ever present risk'. He suggested that governments are keen to buy into anything that offers simplistic solutions to difficult problems. Tasers will be authorised to control others and there will be very minimal opportunity for any prompt redress or complaint'.

106. Mr. P. Lebegue considered that Taser was totally unnecessary and extremely

dangerous. He said that it will create another waste of public funds and will result in law court for damages sooner or later'.

107. Mr. D. Bernard said that there were quite strong arguments for equipping patrolling

police officers with a range of equipment that will be helpful in a wide range of circumstances'. He also acknowledged: At a technical level there is absolutely no question but that they are significantly less likely to be lethal than a firearm'. However he suggested it was important to investigate the number of occasions in which Tasers might have been helpful to resolve violent incidents in Jersey: My understanding is that there has been no case of the police shooting someone in Jersey for over 100 years. So the frequency of incidents in which that level of force was judged necessary has been extremely low. If no serious assessment of likely justified use rate has been made, is it an adequate argument to simply claim that they might one day be useful? Not for me'.

108. Mr. Bernard made the following recommendations to the Panel:

• I would like to see an independent assessment of the quality of the "peaceful resolution" training given to our police officers; and an undertaking to improve it if it is seen as inadequate. In my view, such skills will likely be applied much more frequently than skill with a Taser. Thus it seems reasonably likely that spending resources on improving such training will be more cost-effective than spending the same resources on Tasers.
• I would like to see some serious research into the frequency of likely use, based on local records of violent events, not on those of the UK or elsewhere.

109. Mr. R. Weston pointed out that Tasers could only be considered as an alternative

response to those forms of violence that did not involve a wrong doer armed with a

gun or other explosive device, (such as a grenade or a bomb): Acceptance of this common-sense proposition, brings the debate back to its proper and realistic level; namely to ask whether using a Taser is better than using physical restraint in the form of man-handling (either with or without the help of a truncheon, handcuffs, CS-gas, etc) or simply by using verbal persuasion.

110. Mr. B. Willing said: We should not be slaves to some form of Police fashion.' He

believed there was no justification for Taser procurement or use: Tasers are a long way down any sensible priority list'.

111. Mr. B. Bree believed that there was no need for Tasers in Jersey and called for

greater accountability for the Police.

112. Mr. R. Hill believed that Tasers were entirely unnecessary in Jersey, would

adversely affect the relationship between the police and the public, and ultimately represent a danger to public safety'. He referred to the incident of a Polish man Tasered at a Canadian airport in 2008 and commented: without recourse to [Taser], those same policemen would have had to take a more reasonable and measured approach to the situation'. Mr. Hill believed that the use of Taser was contrary to the policing traditions of Jersey which boasted a low crime rate and of its honorary service:  the prospect of summary electrocution greatly alters and disturbs the relationship between citizen and police officer; a relationship that is built on trust and reasoned judgment. To bring the blunt, indiscriminating and potentially lethal Taser into the equation can only lead to a greater separation between the public and the police – something that adversely affects both - and that impedes any movement towards a safer community for all'.

113. Mr D. Le Quesne believed that it was wrong to allow the introduction of Taser into

Jersey. He said that the burden of proving that they were necessary lay on those who wanted them: the burden is a heavy one, because the proposal is that the police should have available for use against citizens of Jersey a dangerous weapon. Every reason given by the proponents must be examined carefully, and your Panel should only recommend the introduction of Tasers only if you are persuaded that

1. the danger to society, including the police, would be significantly reduced if Tasers were introduced, and

2. to avoid that danger to society, it is worth permitting another danger to society

- the introduction of these weapons (which can kill)'.

114. Mr. Le Quesne acknowledged that the police needed to be armed proportionately to

meet circumstances in which they were faced with armed and violent aggression; however, he challenged the statement from the Minister for Home Affairs who said, in the context of an incident involving a knife "The problem is there is no alternative level of force other than firearms". Mr. Le Quesne said that the principle must surely be that the police use the least force necessary. He said that the Panel should ensure that it was fully satisfied that there was no suitable alternative available to the police and suggested that this might require some expert advice from somebody outside the police force, for the police clearly want this weapon and are not going to accept that they have any suitable alternative. You need to have reliable evidence of what alternatives are available to the police'.

115. Mr. Le Quesne said that the police would naturally want any weapon which

minimised danger to them, and which made their job easier: Shooting with a Taser a person armed with a knife is much safer and easier than using unarmed combat, or a baton or some spray. But that is not our way of policing. We require our police to use minimum/proportionate force'.

116. Mr. Le Quesne said that, should the use of Tasers be permitted in Jersey, it was up

to politicians, not the police, to set precisely the circumstances in which such a lethal weapon might be used. In particular, he pointed to the risk involved in Tasers capacity to send multiple pulses and recommended that a specific limitation should be imposed: In threatening situations, there is a risk that the operator of a Taser will not confine himself to sending just the one pulse, but will send several. It is well documented that this happens. It is the multiple, or repeat, pulses which are particularly dangerous. Unless a Taser is specially altered so as to be capable of delivery only one shock, this danger will exist in all volatile situations'.

117. Deputy G. Baudains examined the risks associated with Tasers and highlighted the

potential for police to abuse Taser. He believed that the deployment of Taser in Jersey was both unnecessary and unwise representing merely a new – and albeit lethal – toy' for the police to use. He was concerned that its deployment in the Island would further alienate the public from the police.

118. Mr. R.E. Romeril objected to the proposed introduction of Tasers which he believed

would send a message that Jersey was nothing less than a hideout of crooks, criminals and shysters and hence the need for such draconian measures on the part of the police'. He believed that a fit and properly trained police officer should be able to disarm anyone wielding a knife or other weapon.

119. Mr. R. Crick believed that, once introduced, Tasers would become the norm, being

used in too many situations where their use was inappropriate and where other methods could defuse the situation instead of inflaming it.

120. Mr. P. McGarry believed that if Tasers were used they would inevitably kill

someone.

121. In addition to these written submissions the Scrutiny Panel received a number of

telephone comments and emails. These are available in full on the Scrutiny website. A large number of people also used the online survey to leave comments. These are also available in full on the Scrutiny website. The results of this survey are discussed elsewhere in this report.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Jersey Human Rights Group (JHRG)

122. Mr. F. J. (Bob) Hill stated that the JHRG was not opposed to the introduction of

Tasers but wanted to see a clear justification for their use. The JHRG had requested a meeting with the Chief Officer of Police but this had been declined. Having seen the figures on violent incidents over the past few years, provided by the States of Jersey Police to the Panel, he commented: We ask again what is a Taser for? Is it a weapon of offence or weapon of defence? When one looks at the number of police officers injured, it is an occupational hazard. I am not saying that we all want to go out and get ourselves beaten up but I think it is an element of risk and, again, would a Taser then be used as a means of going out on the street as we see as an extension from the baton, for handcuffs, from handcuffs to CS gas? You know, do we then see the extension from the CS gas on to a Taser?'

123. Mr. Hill said that the principal concern was the potential escalation of use of Tasers

once they were accepted into the Island: I think that the concern that most people would have, and certainly our group would have, is that because it is deemed to be less lethal is it, therefore, more likely to be used? That is the question. I will be here this afternoon listening to the Chief Officer because I want to know why he can justify it because I want to support him. I have been a police officer. I have been in those situations; I want to support police officers. At the same time, I also see it as an escalation.'

124. Mr. Hill noted that there appeared to be an increasing number of complaints about

excessive force being used by the States of Jersey Police in recent years, based on the annual report 2011 of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority[74]: If we have a look at the number of complaints about excessive force that in 2009 there were 5, in 2010 there were 6 and last year there were 14 so there is an increase of complaints against officers of using excessive force, and also harassment and abuse of authority and threatening behaviour by police officers. Again, the complaints are  

from 2 in 2010 to 8 in 2011. It does illustrate that possibly police officers themselves are not as diplomatic in their dealings with people.'

125. Mr. Hill said that a calm approach to violent incidents was likely to result in a

peaceful resolution rather than resorting to weapons: I want to ask you again, what are Tasers being issued for - to defend the police officer or to defend the public because the police officers are entitled to every protection they can get. At the same time, much can be taken out by the way in which a police officer approaches a situation, and if you are going to go in gung-ho, you are going to attract their attention.'

126. Mr. N. Le Cornu also reiterated the concerns about an apparent trend towards

increasing use of force by the police and pointed to the recent purchase of equipment by the Police in Guernsey: One wonders why is there this need for this step up to new types of more and more sophisticated equipment. One worrying aspect of this sort of trend in Channel Island policing is the purchase by the Guernsey police of what looks like a second-hand R.U.C. (Royal Ulster Constabulary) Land Rover with all the grills and rails and protection that would protect it from a riot in the Bogside but why on earth do they want something like that when, you know, what is the chance of a riot in Jersey? I kind of think pretty low.'

Amnesty International Jersey

127. Mr. E. Le Quesne described the introduction of Tasers into Jersey as a step

change' and said that we ought to be very careful before going into this. He believed evidence of an upsurge in violence was required to justify their deployment. He called for very strict controls and monitoring if they were to be introduced as the use of a powerful weapon such as Taser had a potentially significant impact on those who had it at their disposal: There is a famous psychological experiment that says that people who are given authority, they sometimes get very dictatorial and they like to show their authority. Give a chap a Taser, a young lad the Taser, it could be just a straight show off with it. I think if they even think of a Taser it must be very strictly controlled and in just the hands of a very senior officer and a very strong  chain of command about when it was drawn. So I think it has got to be proved, first of all, it is needed and then it has got to be very strictly controlled and who can have it, when it can be used, and when it can be employed. Then also I think another point our submission makes is that there must be a very clear record of its use, who is using it, when it is used, what was the reason it was used.'

The States of Jersey Police Association

128. Mr. S. Thomas, SOJPA President, said that the SOJPA supported the deployment

of Tasers on the basis that they provided his membership with added protection. He acknowledged that assaults on police officers and incidence of violence were very rare and that up to now we have never fired a shot in anger and let us hope that continues'. He said however that it was necessary to bear in mind that at some stage that might happen in Jersey: We have to be match fit for the what if'; we have to be ready for any event'. He pointed out that with the use of firearms there is likely to be only one outcome and that is a fatal one. If the individual is Tasered clearly there is a less likely outcome of a fatality'.

129. Mr. Thomas made it clear that the SOJPA was only supporting the introduction of

Tasers to authorised firearms officers. There had been no other discussion about extending it to the wider force.

130. Mr. Thomas said that all police officers were trained in conflict resolution: they

should always consider those tactical options when dealing with somebody who offers a level of violence or resistance. Initially it is built into what they call their post- foundation course. So when they join the police service I think about a week is set aside. Thereafter certainly once a year officers have 2-day refresher training every year, and it is non-negotiable. You do it; you have to do it.'

131. Referring to the rising number of complaints about police behaviour, Mr. Thomas

told the Panel: The very nature of the job you are going to attract complaints from members of the public. I think it is a reflection of how open we have become as a police service, that we would encourage and record complaints now, whereas before (I may be speaking out of turn) maybe we would not have so openly  encouraged those complaints and recorded them, and maybe we would have dealt with them differently. Maybe the Desk Sergeant would have dealt with them perhaps, so they would not necessarily have been recorded. But because we are becoming more transparent, everybody is becoming more accountable, not just the police service. I think anybody that makes a complaint now, it is only right that it is recorded; whereas before it may have been dealt with informally.'

Honorary Police

132. Centenier D. Scaife, Chairman of the Comité des Chefs de Police, said that the

general view of the Chefs was in favour of the introduction of Tasers for the States of Jersey Police on the basis that their use should be under controlled circumstances and their authorisation would be limited to specialist groups. They believed that if using a Taser was less lethal than using a firearm then it would be better to go that route. There was no question of the Honorary Police being equipped with Tasers as they were not trained or expected to deal with situations of serious aggression and violence.

133. The Honorary Police representatives described the exposure to violent incidents

which Honorary Officers faced and the training they underwent in order to deal with that. Inexperienced officers would not be put into situations where they might have to encounter such incidents; however, there were possibilities that Honorary Officers might be the first on the scene dealing with violent public order situations. Centenier Scaife said: It is quite clear they should not be and could not be dealing with armed operations or anything like that The problem is that you do not know what is around the corner and it is when you are out and about and you come across an incident of a potentially violent nature and the public perception is, whether you are honorary or States Police, you should do something about it. The control room may not send you there, but that is the public perception.

Oral Evidence given by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and the Chief Firearms Instructor, States of Jersey Police

Annual Number of firearms deployments in Jersey

134. The Chief Firearms Instructor (CFI) informed the Panel that the average number of

firearms deployments by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP) in the six years between 2006 and 2011 was between 12 and 18 per annum. Some of these were pre-planned operations, such as Royal visits, where the criteria for arming are met by the presence of royalty or VIPs in the Island. Another instance of a pre-planned operation was the supervision of the movements of Curtis Warr en from prison to court. Although there were 15 -20 such movements these were counted as a single authority.

135. Other deployments, approximately half the average total, were in response to

spontaneous incidents of violence such as a recent stabbing that had occurred in St Helier (April 2012). The Chief Firearms Instructor confirmed that there had been no notable increase in such deployments in recent years. However, he explained that the ACPO criteria for issuing of firearms had been changed. Whereas it used to be a person in possession of a firearm or who has immediate access to a firearm; it now included: possession of or immediate access to any other potentially lethal weapon or [a person] is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is appropriate (emphasis added by Panel). An offensive weapon might range from a piece of wood with a nail in it to a samurai sword.

136. The SOJP confirmed in a report to the Panel that they had never fired a shot in an

authorised firearms deployment but incidents had involved the pointing of firearms at suspects.[75]

Number of violent incidents

137. The Panel asked the SOJP to provide further information on the number and nature

of violent confrontations in Jersey in the past five years. In response SOJP told the Panel that to provide that information would require sifting through each record of any reference to violence in their incident recording system in order to determine the context of the incidents and whether the description of a violent confrontation was apt. Instead SOJP provided the following brief details of eight incidents involving weapons in 2011 which met the criteria for the deployment of CS spray and the police response to them:

Knife – Domestic assault on daughter. Father armed himself with knife in communal hallway to keep officers at bay. - SPRAYED

Axe – Domestic. Son gone berserk. Eyewitness reports axe in possession of son. Aggressive Resisted arrest. Axe located nearby. - SPRAYED

Baseball bat – Following assault eyewitness advise baseball bat used. Officers stopped suspects and baseball bat dropped. – NOT SPRAYED

Meat Cleaver – Eyewitness reports male holding meat cleaver to girlfriends throat. Aggressive, resisted. NOT SPRAYED

Wheel Brace – Male shoplifter threatened shopkeeper with brace before stealing. Holding brace when stopped. NOT SPRAYED

Knife – Female making threats to cut throats and use knife to cause harm. Knife not located but in home address so access. SPRAYED

Knife – Male threatening self-harm. Dropped knife when challenged but would not comply with commands and resisted. SPRAYED

Knife – Domestic. Male threatening to harm anyone who approached with knife. Knife recovered. NOT SPRAYED – ASPS also DRAWN.[76]

138. Similarly, SOJP were unable to provide figures on the nature of injuries sustained

by participants in violent incidents without a significant review of case files. Figures were provided for the number of officers injured on duty as a result of violence against them:

2007 – 7 2008 – 9 2009 – 9 2010 – 5 2011 – 4[77]

139. Latest figures for assaults on police indicated a significant increase in the first

quarter of 2012.[78]

140. The Chief Firearms Instructor informed the Panel that between 1st January 2011

and 4th November 2011 there were 82 incidents where a knife or weapon was involved. In twenty-six of those the subjects were defined as E.M.D.I. (Emotionally, Mentally or Distressed Individual) and that would include either illicit drug intoxication or alcohol intoxication or some form of psychological [distress].[79]

Incidents where Tasers might potentially be deployed

141. The Panel asked for an assessment of the number of instances when it might have

been appropriate to have had recourse to Tasers if this had been available to them. SOJP did not respond directly to this question but replied that officers at the scene would make a dynamic risk assessment' of the appropriate equipment to deal with the situation. An incident could quickly deteriorate into a very serious violent incident and having recourse to Taser was but one option for officers seeking to deal with a specific incident.[80]

142. The Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police (Chief Officer) and Chief Firearms

Instructor described a situation which had occurred in St Helier a few days before the public hearing in which it might have been appropriate to deploy a Taser. A police officer had been attacked by a man with a weapon:

Chief Officer: I have seen some C.C.T.V. this morning, I cannot go into too many details, of police arriving at a scene and being immediately attacked, a man armed with a weapon. Soon as they got out of the car, physically attacked. It was on the streets of Jersey and that could well be a situation where they may have been deployed with a Taser and whoever it is has attacked them immediately.'

 Chief Firearms Instructor: The situation the Chief is alluding to there is this individual pursued a course of action for a long period of time, for quite a long period, before the police were able to turn up. We have a duty to respond, we have a duty of care to that individual, the general members of the public and also our own officers. In that time, had that situation been monitored by the accredited tactical commander, he may have seen the fact that this individual had a weapon, an edged weapon, and he may have said: "Yes, we will send a Taser for that." It would have stopped the officers getting injured, it would have stopped the subject getting injured and would have brought the situation to a far quicker conclusion and a safer conclusion than it did do.'[81]

143. The Chief Officer said that he had been shocked by the violence in this incident in

an Island considered to be one of the safest places in the Northern Hemisphere: you cannot just say we are a safe Island as though nothing is ever going to happen. Nobody would have predicted in Guernsey, another very safe place, that somebody is going to walk down the street with a samurai sword. People occasionally flip, I am afraid, and when this happens you rely on us to go and deal with it. What I am seeking for is a full suite of tools and we will start by talking and work up appropriately if they do not want to talk. Appropriately.'[82]

144. The Chief Officer described his own experience of the deployment of Taser during

his time with the City of London Police Force: I also have experience from their inception in 2004 in the City of London until such time that I left and came here [in 2011], I cannot give you the exact figure of the amount of times it was deployed in similar ... by authorised firearms officers, probably 100, 200 in that time, and only  ever used once. Once. This was a female on London Bridge who was determined to kill herself but armed with a knife. Every time the officers tried to stop her leaping off the parapet she tried to stab them. On the final attempt to jump into the River Thames, a Taser was deployed. It saved her life.'[83]

Threshold for deployment and use of Taser

145. The Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister) told the Panel that there would be

occasions where the police would want to deploy Tasers instead of a firearm or Tasers together with a firearm. He said that there was a category of cases where at the moment the police would have to deploy firearms because they did not have Tasers: You have 2 areas of potential deployment: you have a potential area of deployment where a firearm is at the moment deployed, or might be deployed, under the firearms test and then you have another section where the firearms test would not be met but nevertheless would even still be appropriate in order to reduce the risk of harm either to police officers involved or to the individual or to third parties'.[84]

146. He was seeking to define a threshold which was slightly lower than for the

deployment of firearms but which was tighter than the current ACPO guidelines: At the moment [ACPO guidelines] have: "... where there is a threat of physical violence to any person which requires a Taser to be made available as a necessary and appropriate level of response to that threat." The Minister proposed to add in his proposition to the States on Tasers[85] reference to a specific threat of violence: If you compare what we have drafted at the moment, which was intended to be a tighter test than the A.C.P.O. test, a reason to suppose that there is a specific threat of physical violence, and put in there a specific threat to get rid of the possibility under the A.C.P.O. guideline of a general threat being perceived'.[86]

147. The Chief Firearms Instructor pointed out that the criteria for actual use (or

discharge) of a Taser, or any other of their tactical weapons, against a suspect was far higher than for its deployment: Officers walk around daily with CS and an ASP of course because they know the criteria for them to carry it and patrol with it is set as a standard. The criteria for them to use either piece of equipment is far higher than carrying it.[87]

148. The Chief Officer did not rule out the use of Taser in drive stun mode[88] in Jersey.

He said it was used in this mode in about 5% of all Taser situations in the UK.[89]

Limitation of Use to Authorised Firearms Officer (AFOs)

149. The Minister's proposition on the use of Tasers in Jersey makes it clear that they

would only be used by AFOs[90]. The Chief Officer stated that there was no intention to follow the expansion of Tasers to other front line officers or Specially Trained Units (STUs): There is absolutely no intention whatsoever to issue [Tasers] to other than authorised firearms officers at all. Other forces in the U.K. do but we will assess the situation here. I do not think it is necessary. We have at the moment 31 authorised firearms officers – that is sufficient for the volume of calls we get and looking at the historical evidence.'[91]

150. He acknowledged that the situation in Jersey could not be compared to a major city

where wider availability of Tasers might be beneficial: It would be very difficult to compare Central London where I have just spent the last decade with Jersey; it is a bit like comparing an apple with an orange. What is right for Commissioner Hogan- Howe [of the metropolitan Police] in London might not be the case here.[92]

151. The Chief Officer said that AFOs were highly trained and, having been

psychologically analysed before taking the training, were capable of assessing the

tactical options appropriate to the circumstances and making the necessary difficult decisions in very tense circumstances: I have always deemed it appropriate to issue [Tasers] to authorised firearms officers who are very highly trained in conflict situations, to give them the option to make a choice, together with a tactical adviser, either prior to attending a scene or at the scene to say: "Okay, the original intelligence was for firearms but now we have assessed it we have realised that is pushing it too far and a Taser is more appropriate".[93]

152. The Chief Officer told the Panel that, apart from a full-time trainer and support staff,

AFOs in Jersey were multi-functional, deployed doing other jobs across the Force: my responsibility is to ensure that we deploy our resources so that there are sufficient numbers available at any one time 24 hours a day. [AFOs] are doing other jobs but they have access to their personal equipment and will down tools, whatever their day job is, and be able to respond'.[94]

Capability Gap

153. The SOJ Police report to the Minister, which was provided to the Panel for its

review, stated that the SOJP had identified a tactical shortfall in its ability to manage firearms' incidents safely in the absence of Tasers'.[95]

154.  Taser may be used as part of a range of tactical options available to the

police. It might be deployed alongside or in preference to a conventional firearm or other authorised weapon, and would give the police the capability of deal with an aggressive individual wielding a potentially lethal weapon, such as a knife, samurai sword or other edged instrument, from a safe distance.

155.  A Taser cannot be considered as a replacement for conventional firearms. For

one thing its maximum range (up to 21 feet or 6.4 metres), being the length of the

wires that carry the current and electrically connect the barbs to the weapon, is a limitation when an officer is faced with a person in possession of a firearm.[96]

156. The Minister's report accompanying the draft proposition describes the capabilities

and limitations of two of the alternative options currently available to the Police, namely CS Incapacitant Spray, which is termed a secondary control skill'; and the baton gun (L104A1 Launcher) which fires rubber bullets (attenuated energy projectiles) and is described as a less lethal option.

157. CS Spray is carried by all SOJ police officers as a matter of course and does not

require special authorisation to be deployed.[97] A Taser incapacitates a subject more effectively than a CS Spray. Taser causes electro-muscular disruption' which causes the subject to freeze up and usually to fall to the floor.

158. The baton gun is deployed as standard equipment in every firearms incident.

However, because of tactical limitations of its use, it can only ever be deployed alongside conventional firearms. It has the potential to cause fatal injuries and for this reason is not used in normal circumstances under seven metres from the subject.

159. In the majority of occasions where Taser is used, it is not discharged. A

Government Steering Group examining the patterns of Taser use in England, Scotland and Wales from its introduction in 2003 until 2006 found that in around 60% of cases, drawing, aiming, or red-dotting (the red dot laser sight is activated and placed on a subject but the Taser is not fired) was sufficient to resolve and manage a violent incident.[98]

160. The Panel asked the Chief Officer to clarify what was meant by the term capability

gap'. By way of example, the Chief Officer referred to an incident in Guernsey which had been resolved through recourse to discharging a Taser. It had involved a man in the street carrying a Samurai sword: That would be an extreme but possible  

set of circumstances anywhere, so what would be the correct response to that? Firearms: unless anyone's life is in immediate danger, probably not. Baton round: again, it might be pushing it but I do not want my officers going right up to a person with a samurai sword with a baton or CS. There is a huge gap, literally a physical gap, between CS and baton, baton rounds and firearms, in my professional opinion, that needs to be closed, but extremely unlikely extreme circumstances that are nevertheless possible.[99]

161. He also referred to one of the incidents which had occurred in Jersey in 2011 which

was described as follows in the report provided to the Panel: "Axe. Domestic. Gone berserk. Eye-witness reports axe in possession of an individual, aggressively resisted arrest." He commented: If I were an officer being sent to somebody who has gone berserk with an axe, I would feel much more comfortable with the option of a Taser or CS spray. I do not particularly want to get within 4 metres of somebody who has gone berserk with an axe'.[100]

162. He explained that a Taser offered a less lethal alternative to the use of a firearm

and generally this was a safer option for all concerned: A firearm is pretty conclusive and I do not want to supply firearms when there is a better alternative which protects the officers to whom I have a duty of care but more importantly the public to whom I have a wider duty of care as well and the individual. At the end of the day, third on the list, is the person of threat. I have a duty to them as well.[101]

Continuum of Force and Conflict Resolution

163. A significant area of concern for the Panel regarded what was sometimes termed

as mission creep', namely a tendency once introduced for the use of Taser to extend to a wider range of incidents beyond those originally envisaged. In its research the Panel has noted recommendations that policies on Tasers should include a use of force continuum which focussed on using the minimum amount of

force necessary to obtain lawful objectives.[102] The Panel asked the Chief Officer how this would be applied in the use of Tasers in order to avoid the situation raised in a number of submissions where officers might over-react to a violent situation or use a Taser in inappropriate circumstances.

164. The Chief Officer explained that officers were already obliged to act accordingly to a

continuum of force which generally started with verbal communication: Most violent situations are resolved by either the arrival of an officer or post-arrival a bit of talk to calm him down and 95 per cent of cases are resolved that way. If that does not work then you start thinking about the continuum of force, knowing that you are accountable to the law yourself and an Independent Police Complaints Commission, and you have to start thinking about what is the most appropriate. As you ratchet up the continuum, you decide that that is not appropriate: "I have considered it; it is not necessary" and you would go up the continuum until you reached ultimately (it is very sort of high) for the Taser before that. I am not a technical expert on these matters but in terms of the CS you have somewhere between 1 and 4 metres of standoff to deliver it effectively and then I think a baton round is 7 metres to 21 and the Taser is up to [7 metres] because that is the length of the wires that come from the projectile, so the Taser closes that gap between 4 and 7 metres. Because at the moment there is a physical gap between 4 and 7 metres of standoff. Every officer is trained and regularly refresher trained in conflict resolution and would be expected and are accountable for their actions to work along the continuum of force, having eliminated verbal communication.[103]

165. The Chief Officer said that he hoped Tasers would never actually be used: Nobody

likes to apply force, a legitimate use of force, but there are occasions when we have to. There is a risk in every style of situation and all I seek today is to close a gap. I hope that I come back here in 10 years time and we discuss how often we used Taser in the previous decade and I say: "Well we deployed it on numerous occasions but we did not use it once." That would be my hope'.[104]

166. The use of force, he said, would be a final resort after other forms of persuasion

had been tried: Our priority is in training our officers to interact with the public at least by consent and use verbal means to deal with conflict. Fortunately, as I say, we are empowered to use a legitimate use of force to deal with conflict. It is what we do and our training is focussed very heavily ... the emphasis is on nice, friendly, confident policing where we can talk people out of getting into conflict situations. But, as I say, on a very, very rare occasion, a minority of occasions, we have to resort to a higher level of the conflict resolution model.'[105]

167. Individual officers are not in a position to make a decision to deploy a Taser – this

requires the authorisation of an accredited Tactical Firearms Commander, who is an officer of the rank of Inspector or above.[106]

168. He added that there was an obligation on officers to report any use of force:

[Officers] have to submit a use-of-force form for any use of force ... along the continuum immediately after the use of such force to justify it and it is a Duty to Report. Irrespective of whether there is a complaint or anything else, it is a matter of policy.'[107]

Monitoring the use of Taser

169. The Chief Officer told the Panel that each and every use of a Taser device was

tracked and recorded: The thing about the Taser it has an on-board computer chip which will tell you precisely when and for how long and for how many times it had been applied. If there is a subsequent inquiry, subsequent complaint, that is downloaded and it is almost like a tracking device in the use of that instrument.'[108]

170. He added: I would also publish as a part of the annual report, the annual

performance data, any deployments and usage of Tasers as a matter of course in the public domain'.[109]

171. The Chief Firearms Instructor expanded on the way Tasers automatically recorded

any usage: [Taser] comes with its own laptop and it is put into a secure housing and it downloads the data once the Taser is put back in that charge mode. It downloads it automatically to the computer which obviously then you can interrogate the computer to find out; even whether the officer has checked it before they have taken it out on duty. One of the performance checks is you arc the weapon to make sure that the battery supply is working, et cetera. It tells you from the start of the tour of duty until it is put back there exactly what has happened in relation to the safety on and off, whether the cartridge has been taken off, whether it has been arced, whether the red dot has been deployed, so it will tell you quite comprehensively exactly how it has been used. Moreover, each of the cartridge heads have standalone A.F.I.D.s (Anti Felon Identification Discs) with seal numbers on that are unique to that cartridge head. So you will sign for 3 cartridges, each of which will have a bar code and the A.F.I.D.s that are then deposited on firing the weapon will be seized. Then when you have the post-incident procedure if the A.F.I.D.s do not match the cartridge head then obviously you do not have the Taser that has been fired by someone.'[110]

Potential for misuse

172. The Chief Officer confirmed that any heavy-handed usage of a Taser device merely

to enforce a suspect to comply or to punish before they had committed a crime would be a disciplinary offence for the officer concerned.[111]

173. The Minister said: Frankly there are other bits of equipment which are deployed for detaining by police officers or available for detaining which could be far more  

abused than this. You talk about the ASP, for instance. An ASP is deployed in particular ways and there are guidelines and so on and so forth but if an officer were minded to misuse one, frankly, the potential for damage to an individual is far greater.'[112]

Complaints procedures

174. The Chief Officer said that he expected that the same rules would apply in Jersey

as in the UK where any use of Taser which resulted in loss of life; danger to the public or a failure in command will be referred to the I.P.C.C. – in Jersey these would go automatically to the Jersey Police Complaints Authority.[113]

175. The Minister said that any complaints about the misuse of Tasers by a police officer

would be dealt with in the same way as any other complaint: They can either complain directly to the States of Jersey Police or they go through the Police Complaints Authority. They are then logged by the Deputy Chief Officer of Police and the Police Complaints Authority will then have oversight over the process of investigation. That so, except for complaints against the Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Officer, which falls strictly with my purview.[114]

176. The Panel noted that the latest report of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority

indicated that there had been a significant increase in 2011 compared to 2010 in complaints against the police regarding use of excessive force and that complaints regarding harassment, threatening behaviour or abuse of authority had also increased.[115] The Minister however did not accept that this was a significant trend:

he said that the number of complaints had not gone up over a three year period and that there had been a numerical blip in 2011.[116]

Storage of equipment

177. The Chief Officer told the Panel that Tasers would not be deployed to Officers for

overt patrol – they would only ever be deployed from a locked safe in a specific police vehicle or at police headquarters[117]: [Tasers would be] sealed in a locked environment – a tamper proof safe - before deployment. It would be utilising the current safes in police cars which are used for authorised firearms officers. [The police] have 3 vehicles: 2 unmarked vehicles with an armoury and one overtly marked A.R.V. (Armed Response Vehicle) which carries a range of weaponry, both conventional and less lethal technology, permanently. That obviously cuts down our reaction time and our delivery time by half.[118] There was no proposal to increase the number of armed response vehicles.

Training

178. The Chief Firearms Instructor described the prescribed training for AFOs: [The use

of Tasers] would be part of the 7-week initial firearms course they attend before they come out. They are judged by sound judgment, knowledge and understanding of the Conflict and Management Model or the National Decision Model, as it is now, a demonstrated maturity of action in policing situations and the ability to use legitimate force in a proportionate manner before they even attend the firearms course. They then go forward for a 7-week firearms course at the conclusion of which there will be a 3-day bolt-on course for Taser. Sixteen hours' contact time and if you have read the guidance on specially trained units, that criteria has to be fulfilled by the A.F.O. in exactly the same manner. Forty-one performance criteria  

surrounding their use and deployment has to be met by the officer initially and then annually on top of that every single year.[119]

179. The training would include a range of scenarios on when Tasers would be

appropriate: It all comes down to the training and looking at the contingencies. When you look and plan, prepare to go forward to either deploy firearms or any situation of conflict, you are making considerations and contingencies. So one of the things we will say, if we go into a stronghold where somebody is holding somebody hostage at knifepoint and we are looking at deploying Taser, what is the consideration? If the subject is sat down, how do we get a good shot and that may be instructing the individual by other means so he can get round to the back of the individual to deploy the Taser effectively. So shot fall is a consideration you make, but during that 3-day training they will be put through those scenarios. So we will have people sat in the Taser suits sat down offering violence, or stood on tables or purposely holding something in front of them: a member of the public, a hostage'.[120]

180. The Chief Firearms Instructor described an incident in which he had been involved

in a deployment of firearms in Jersey and in which he claimed that the training he had received as a AFO had resulted in avoiding a potential fatal shooting of a suspect: I will give you an example of my first firearms deployment when I nearly shot somebody in 1998 in Jersey. I did my initial firearms course in 1998 in April. The October we were deployed to Trinity Arsenal to a report that an individual had contacted an ex-girlfriend, met her in town for a coffee, opened his jacket, showed her a shoulder holster with a black pistol in. He loaded the pistol from the bottom and racked the action, she said, so a semi-automatic 9 mm pistol essentially. He has then put it back in and informed her that the next bullet was going to be fired was going to be at her new boyfriend. We contained the house, there was an observation point put in. The individual comes out of the house, we challenged the individual, we were pointing guns at him, the safeties were off, our fingers on the trigger, he smiles and put his hand straight inside his jacket and looked me square in the eye, at which point I began to pull the trigger. His only saving grace is the fact that we planned and looked at contingencies and looked at backdrops, et  

cetera, the area we defined and the resources we had, the tactics and training we have. We took 3 or 4 paces forward, shuffled forward, and again insisted that he desisted from what he was doing. He put his hand up, took his hand out, he placed on the floor, surely enough there is a shoulder holster and a hand gun in there. If we were not trained to the standard we are there was a chance he would have got shot. That is being on the section for 6 months in 1998. You do not get to hear about these situations.'[121]

Associated Risks

181. The Panel asked for the witnesses' view on the risks of injuries associated with

Taser use, particularly for those with existing health problems or under the influence of drink or drugs, which was a particular concern of many who had written to the Panel with their comments. The Minister acknowledged that the use of Taser carried risks: I think that there are concerns in relation to the fact that it is possible if you Taser somebody and they have a particular health condition ... or because they sometimes will just keel over as a result of being Tasered. There is a risk of serious injury associated with that in terms of striking their head on the floor; things like that. It is one of the factors officers have to seek to take into account. I am not saying that the use of a Taser might not in some circumstances cause serious injury and that, I think, is an issue which will cause concern to the public. But of course what I would say is that it is far, far, far less likely to be so than the deployment of a gun, the use of a gun, and that is the whole point of the issue. Here you have something which is not designed to kill; it is designed to incapacitate.'[122]

182. The Chief Firearms Instructor pointed out that other forms of restraint open to the

police also carried a risk of injury to an aggressor: I would say in that case if you are looking at anybody with a medical condition or illicit drug intoxication or alcohol intoxication, then the risk of a Taser is no different to a risk either getting CSed,  placed facedown in the prone position and fighting with police officers for a substantial period of time, in some cases 10 or 15 minutes of physical exertion, than opposed to a 5-second burst of Taser where you are then compliant, get up and you can walk away. There has to be a balance struck between an overweight man who is put in the prone position who is at risk of positional asphyxia, having fought for 15, 20 minutes with police with 4, 5, 6 police officers on occasion because of the level of violence he is displaying, his health is just as much at risk from that level of either drug or alcohol intoxication as he is from a 5-second burst of Taser.'[123]

183. The Chief Officer referred to a statement made by the IPPC: "Taser does not give

police officers a risk-free cure-all when tackling violent incidents. We recognise that in dealing with such situations the police do not have a safe option, and all the equipment available to them carries risk."[124]

184. With regard to the risks to persons with a medical defect, the Chief Firearms

Instructor claimed that they were no more at risk from Tasers than they were from any other form of exertion. He based this assertion on the conclusion of the latest DOMILL studies in 2008 on the Taser effects on cardiac rhythm: They tested it, 2 types of cardiac rhythm: ventricular ectopic beats and ventricular fibrillation, and neither of those could be induced by the use of Taser.'[125]

185. The Chief Officer acknowledged concerns about the fatalities which had been