From a legal perspective, officers must use only as much force as is necessary in the lawful execution of their duty. To support them in doing so Article 2 of the UN Basic Principles states that; ‘Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms.’

Taser and other ‘less lethal’ technologies have been introduced to meet this requirement. Taser was first introduced in the UK in 2003 during a trial involving five forces; it was issued to authorised firearms officers as a less lethal alternative to conventional firearms. In 2004 this trial was extended to all police forces. In 2007 Taser was authorised for deployment, by authorised firearms officers but outside of firearms operations. In the same year a trial in ten forces began whereby non-firearms officers were trained and issued with Taser. Following these successful trials, in 2008, Taser was made available to all police forces for issue to specially trained officers.

The latest Taser usage data will be released by the Home Office shortly and this will inform a thematic review being produced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is important to clarify what we mean by Taser ‘use’. Use is defined as drawing the weapon, aiming it at a person, using the sighting system to ‘red dot’ a person, arcing the weapon where the cartridge is removed and electricity is passed between conductors to create a deterrent crackling noise, discharge of the weapon where the barbs are discharged at a person and ‘drive stun’ where the cartridge is removed and the Taser applied against the body. Previous data confirms that Taser discharges account for around 25% of use. Of significance is that in around 75% of cases the weapon is not discharged and its mere presence is sufficient to encourage a violent individual to become compliant. This does not support the notion that police officers will abuse Taser or are ‘trigger happy’ as described in one national newspaper.

In common with batons, incapacitant spray, police dogs etc Taser is not a risk free option, but generally the electrical current is not dangerous. The weapon is often emotively described in the press as a ‘50,000 volt stun gun’. The truth is that 50,000 volts are only created to make the weapon arc; the electricity that actually passes into the body is far less, around 1200 volts. In any case voltage is not the issue, it is amperes that matter and a Taser discharges only 0.0021 amps (a Christmas tree bulb uses about 1 amp). It is the manner in which the electricity oscillates that has the effect on the neuromuscular system.

The risks associated with Taser are more to do with the loss of muscular control and this can cause individuals to freeze on the spot, or fall to the ground, unable to break their fall. This creates an obvious risk of secondary injury as a result of falling onto a hard surface. Government medical advisors also highlight the potential risk to individuals of small stature or with heart defects and this is covered in officer’s training which remains one of the longest and most comprehensive training packages in the world.

So why isn’t Taser issued to all front line police officers? These are operational decisions for individual Chief Constables. The Home Office Code of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons places a requirement on Chief Constables to produce an annual Firearms Strategic Threat and Risk Assessment (STRA) and to ensure that sufficient numbers of their officers are selected, trained and equipped to respond to the threats identified. Alongside threat and risk, geography is important. Geographically smaller, but more urban forces, may be in a position to provide adequate Taser coverage from within force level specialist units. Response times in geographically larger, more rural forces, may necessitate equipping more front line patrol officers with Taser.

The response times described in the blog would tend to suggest that Taser coverage was insufficient to meet the threat and this links to the Commissioner’s announcements on Taser and the fact that the Metropolitan Police Service is training an additional 1300 front line officers. I am also aware of a number of forces, including my own, which are extending the roll-out of Taser to provide better coverage and increased public and officer protection. But, I do not agree with some of the comments on this site; there have been a number of high profile adverse incidents involving Taser, and I firmly believe that maintaining public confidence is vital. Put simply Taser remains emotive and ‘if we abuse it we will lose it’. The roll-out of the side handled baton in this Country was postponed as a direct result of the beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1991, it is also worth remembering that this incidnet also involved the use of an earlier type of Taser device and this effectively stopped the issue of such devices for many years.

There has been considerable public debate and even judicial reviews in some parts of the UK about the decision to issues Tasers in the phased way I have described above. So far we have brought the public opinion with us and the judicial reviews and comments have been supportive of the actions of the service. This phased approach, linked to threat assessment is, in my view, the correct way forward.
.