My subtraction revealed the following figures for January - March 2009 (the latest figures available):

Discharges are where the weapon is fired and an electric shock applied from a distance. Drive-Stun is where the police hold the weapon against you and shock you. “All Uses” includes merely drawing the weapon as a warning.

This is only the second set of statistics released showing the usage of TASER by non-firearms officers in the UK and already we’re seeing almost 1/3 of TASER usage being by non-firearms officers.

This statistic concerns me greatly. I am happy for firearms officers to have TASERs to use as a less lethal alternative to a gun, but do not want to see all response police armed with the weapons. Before September 2007 only Firearms officers were armed with TASER in the UK, 0% of TASER use was by other, less experienced and less highly trained officers. Now almost a third of TASER use is by normal police officers who have had a few hours training with the weapons. If the current Government fulfil achieve their aims then almost all TASER use will be by non-firearms officers as they intend to arm all response police with the weapons.

These latest statistics also reveal a particularly significant increase in TASER Discharges by non-firearms officers in Northumbria, with 31 discharges by non-firearms officers there in the first quarter of 2009.

Raw Source:

• Statistics to Dec 08
• Statistics to Mar 09

The TASER website describes the new weapon:

The TASER® XREP™ is a self-contained, wireless electronic control device (ECD), that deploys from a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. It delivers a similar Neuro Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) bio-effect as our handheld TASER® X26™ ECD, but can be delivered to a maximum effective range of 100 feet (30.48 meters), combining blunt impact force. The battery supply is fully integrated into the chassis and provides the power to drive the XREP projectile engine.

…

On impact, the forward facing barbed electrodes attach to the body of the target. The energy from the impact breaks a series of fracture pins that release the main chassis of the XREP projectile which remains connected to the nose by a nonconductive tether. The XREP projectile autonomously generates NMI for 20 continuous seconds. As the chassis falls away, six Cholla electrodes automatically deploy to deliver the NMI effect over a greater body mass.

A promotional video for the new weapon can be seen TASER Inc’s website

The IPCC currently require all complaints about TASER discharges to be referred to them and they have indicated they are likely to investigate instances where the TASER has been applied to the head or neck.

Current guidance from ACPO Limited (the unaccountable private company which effectively sets policing policy in the UK) states:

the Taser should not be aimed so as to strike the head or neck of a subject unless this is wholly unavoidable.

See also: Police accused of firing Taser into head of innocent man - December 2007

The force has accepted new weapons from the Home Office but has made a statement saying it has no plans to use them.

Cambridgeshire Police have also taken delivery of the new TASERs intended for use by non-firearms officers; but it was reported to a recent police authority meeting that they have to all intents and purposes simply been “put in a cupboard”.

Many forces, and their police authorities have not yet considered the question of arming non-firearms officers, even though they have accepted the weapons from the Home Office.

One shocking aspect of the reports today, which arise following freedom of information requests conducted by the Liberal Democrats, is that ten of the UK’s forty or so police forces reportedly did not reply to the freedom of information request made.

Sources:

• The Argus - Sussex Police leaves extra Tasers on the shelf
• Telegraph - Taser roll-out snubbed by police

These incidents had occurred while the weapons have been largely restricted to highly trained firearms officers, the number of such incidents will surely increase as TASERs are rolled out to more non-firearms officers. One thing this report does is draw attention to the fact that a massive increase in TASER use is imminent and the intention is to arm all response police officers in the country with the weapons.

As the weapons record every discharge electronically the reason we know about these accidents is due to officers being required to explain the circumstances surrounding every time they use the weapons. We do not know if these were accidental firings, or simply discharges, or if they occurred during incidents, in training or elsewhere.

I am concerned that an increased use of TASER will inevitably lead to excessive force being used on a greater number of occasions.

More officers carrying and using TASER will create a bigger barrier between the police and public, change the nature of the country and make it harder to police.

It should be noted that just because forces have taken these weapons it does not mean they are in use. My local force in Cambridgeshire has put all of those it took “in a cupboard”, partly as they don’t have the funds for training officers to use them. Others are already on the streets, as we saw in Nottingham earlier today.

New TASER Distribution Since March 2009

March 2009 figures

While we do not know what preceded events in Nottingham it does appear that there were four officers and present, backup was seconds away. As such the force used looks excessive.

I do not want to see TASER used in situations like this in the UK. I am concerned that we will see this kind of thing on a regular basis as the 10,000 TASERs for non-firearms officers begin to be deployed on Britain’s streets. While these weapons have been distributed to forces many are not in use yet as officers await training. If people don’t act we will see more and more police armed with these weapons and scenes like this will become common place. People will be injured and die as a result of such excessive use of force.

It appears to me that the second use of the TASER on the video has been simply to encourage the man to comply. With four officers present there was no need at all for that second shock in my view.

It is worth noting that there is currently no requirement for the use of a TASER, such as that shown in the video, to be automatically referred to the IPCC. We only know about this one because it was videoed and put on YouTube. Anyone can make a complaint though, and all TASER related complaints are now referred to the IPCC, that doesn’t mean the IPCC will necessarily investigate the complaint though.

Nottinghamshire Police have voluntarily referred this event to the IPCC.

I have said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Tasers should not be used in public order control situations

I am happy that the minister has made clear that his view is TASER ought not be used in these situations. This is interesting as it comes at the same time as TASER International is promoting its “Shockwave” system for use in public order situations.

TASER’s promotional material states:

Multiple TASER Shockwave units can be stacked together either horizontally in order to extend area coverage, or vertically to allow multiple salvo engagements; or daisy chained together to maximize either area coverage or cartridge pattern density. These features provide the capability to project Area Denial from a secure location. … The TASER Shockwave unit deploys its cartridges up to 25-feet, to instantaneously incapacitate multiple personnel within the field of deployment coverage. … The TASER Shockwave device has the ability to de-escalate/defuse violent crowd/riot situations with the only safer response to resistance Area Denial incapacitating device, by deploying multiple TASER cartridges that are oriented across a wide area arc.

I don’t think arrays of TASER weapons ought ever be deployed on the streets of the UK.

The first sentence of the accompanying press release entitled “Increase in taser use following rollout to more officers” is:

New figures published today show Tasers were used 187 times and discharged 35 times by specially trained units in the period 1 September 2008 to the 31 December 2008.

This is being misinterpreted by the some elements of the media who are not aware that “specially trained units” means non-firearms officers. These 35 discharges are only a small fraction of the total UK police use of TASER, not the total as is being implied. It doesn’t help that the definitions of terms, and one of the main reports of the trial deployment to non-firearms trained officers are only available via the Association of Chief Police Officers, a private limited company not subject to the Freedom of Information Act which is refusing to release such information.

Clarity is not helped by the figures quoted in the press release not actually being available in the linked statistics document. None of the tables is for the period September - December 2008, the period for which the “headline” figures are provided.

This latest report adds extra information to the “TASER Trial Evaluation 2008” report previously published by the the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) which claimed to have provided the “final figures on Taser use in the trial”; it appears the Home Office have just realised that not all the data was included in that report.

The press release also states 7000 TASERs for non-firearms police have been taken up by UK police forces. Private Eye a couple of weeks ago said the Home Secretary had only been able to give 2000 away.

I support firearms officers having access to TASER to use as an alternative to a gun. I oppose the deployment of TASER to all UK response police. I am concerned such a deployment will change the nature of policing in the UK. If we will move away from an unarmed force and the relationship between the police and public will be seriously damaged.

From the introduction of TASER to the UK in 2003 the Police Complaints Authority and later the IPCC reviewed all incidents during which a TASER was discharged. That’s not all complaints, that’s all discharges. In May 2005 this was dropped as the volume was becoming to great for the IPCC to handle, from then only those incidents causing death or serious injury, or those revealing command issues or exposing the public to unacceptable risk were referred.

In late 2007 the trial deployment of TASER to non-firearms police began, and the IPCC asked again for all public complaints relating to that trial to be referred to them. Following the completion of this trial this requirement was dropped. The expansion of TASER use to all front-line response police in the UK was announced in November 2008.

I welcome this step by the IPCC as it will ensure that there is greater oversight of the use of TASER by UK police.