Does Taser use breach fundamental human rights?

A recent Law Society debate on Tasers was well timed and the first real public interaction on the use of Tasers since they were introduced into the UK in 2003. Since 2008, the number of Taser-related incidents have increased dramatically across the country, especially on the vulnerable. Last year, in Kent, 50 per cent of Taser use was on those suffering from mental health disorder and following a Freedom of Information request by Open World News, it was discovered that a 12-year-old girl from St Helens had been Tasered by Merseyside Police in 2011.

Children fall within a specific risk group, which means that Tasers should only be used on them if there is no other feasible method to restraint them. This is a hard test to satisfy. The elderly, those suffering from epilepsy and pregnant women also fall within this group.

The debate centred around the question of whether Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, that no one has the right to be treated in an inhuman, degrading or humiliating manner or punished and/or Article 2 of European Convention of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to be protected, were breached by Taser use.

As I have previously mentioned the Taser is a firearm, under section 5 of Firearms Act 1968. It is not an Officer Safety Tool like the handcuff or the baton. Tasers have the potential to kill and seriously injure people if they are misused. If they are misused, does that mean there has been potential breach of the human rights legislation? Any misuse of force could constitute a breach, however that applies more readily to Tasers, bar the gun, as the Taser has the ability to incapacitate the individual.

There is also a potential breach of human rights legislation if there is a lack of investigation or an inadequate investigation. Many of the individuals who have been Tasered complain to their police forces. However, a majority of the investigations are carried out locally by the force's Professional Standards Departments. There is no independent oversight into their investigations so do they constitute investigations which are human right compliant?

Public bodies are under an obligation to carry out a full and proper investigation when complaints are made to them. If the complaints made are about the infliction of pain, or if the Taser was used in a degrading or humiliating manner then the complaint should be investigated independently. There is substantial case law to identify what amounts to a human right compliant investigation but the police, in my view are failing to satisfy the test laid down by law and are potentially breaching human rights legislation.

Turning to the issue of training, does the Taser training comply with the requirements under human rights legislation? At present the Taser training is carried out over a three day course plus a one day annual refresher. Unlike the training for firearms officers, who must certificate their capability to use a firearm every six months, there is no regular training or certification process for officers trained with the Taser.

Without proper training the police forces in England & Wales are exposing themselves to potential breaches of human rights legislation, as there is a requirement on the State that law enforcement officers, should receive clear and precise instructions as to the manner and circumstances in which they should make use of Taser.

While it may be argued that specialist trained officers are receiving human right compliant training, the same argument cannot be made about the training provided to non-specialist trained officers. In my view, there needs to be a synchronisation of the training as the number of Tasers increase across the country.

I have been told that the Home Office will be releasing their up-to-date statistics on the use of Tasers this September. The data I understand will show a significant increase. This comes as no surprise to me as there have been a record number of Taser incidents reported in the news this year. The Taser is now being used as a weapon of first resort, rather than last. If that trend continues the Taser will no longer be known not for its acronym, Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle but for the headlines that it continues to generate.