MPS position on 'less lethal' technology and options

Report: 10b
Date: 28 February 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the Metropolitan Police Service's position on the introduction of 'less lethal' technology and options.

A. Recommendations

Members are asked to note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is fully committed to the introduction of suitable 'less lethal' technology and options, as an alternative to firearms being used by police in some situations.

2. This commitment is in line with the legal and moral obligations on police to restrain violent or armed individuals using the minimum amount of force, whilst protecting members of the public and ensuring officer safety.

3. To this end, the MPS established a 'less lethal' options Working Group in September 2001. This group is chaired by Commander Baker, Specialist Operations Department, reporting directly to Mr. Veness, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations.

4. The introduction of 'less lethal' technologies and options is being dealt with as a national policing issue. The MPS Working Group is acting in close liaison with the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB). This is to ensure that any recommendations it makes will be compliant with emerging national guidelines and based on the best available independent scientific and medical evaluation.

5. However, one of the effects of this liaison is that the pace of the Metropolitan Police 'Less Lethal' Options Working Group is dictated to a large degree by work being undertaken at national level. Procedures are in place for the MPS to consider promptly any developments in national policy or research findings.

6. Ostensibly there are three types of less lethal technology under active consideration- impact, electrical and chemical devices. There are other distraction devices under development, such as noise and laser, but these are really enabling devices to gain valuable time.

7. Any introduction of a new 'less lethal' technology or option needs to be carefully considered. A balance must be achieved between protecting the rights of an armed or dangerous individual and ensuring that the people of London and the police officers protecting them are not put at increased risk of harm.

8. Furthermore, appropriate levels of training, guidelines/policy and investigation protocols need to be established prior to its adoption to safeguard police officers and instil public confidence.

9. With this in mind the following three points are worthy of note:

• The MPS already employs a wide range of 'less lethal' equipment and options. These include negotiation, physical restraint through approved self-defence techniques, use of personal protective equipment such as handcuffs, batons and CS Spray and, where necessary, specialist officers deployed with dogs, horses or public order equipment. The choice of an option, or options, is made following a risk assessment of the circumstances at a particular incident. Any new 'less lethal' option or technology should be seen in this context.
• The agreed Home Office and ACPO wording of 'less lethal' takes into account the fact that any use of force against a person, irrespective of the method in which applied, carries a degree of risk. For example, a person struck by a supposedly non-lethal weapon might fall and sustain secondary injuries or suffer medical complications. Whilst extensive scientific and medical research as well as guidelines and training will go some way to reducing these risks, there remains a real possibility that a small number of individuals might regrettably receive fatal, albeit legally justifiable, injuries through police intervention.
• The Home Office, ACPO and the Metropolitan Police Service are in agreement that 'less lethal' options and technologies should not be seen as a direct replacement to the police use of firearms. Where a person is armed with a firearm, or otherwise so dangerous as to put life in imminent danger, firearms will be deployed. This is because the risk posed to others is invariably so great it is considered necessary and proportionate for police to have an option available to immediately incapacitate them. At this time there are no 'less lethal' technologies, either on or near to market, capable of causing such immediate incapacitation at safe distance.

History of 'less lethal' technology to date

10. During the year 2000 ACPO sub-groups concerned with Self-Defence Arrest and Restraint, Police Use of Firearms, and Public Order began to look at the possible introduction of 'less lethal' technology. At the same time the Northern Ireland Office and Home Office Action against Crime and Disorder Unit began to look at the same subject. In the beginning all of these groups were working in a degree of isolation.

11. In April 2000 the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) produced a medical report on the L21A1 Baton Round fired from the L104A1 Baton Gun with a L18A1 optical sight. This technology is covered in depth at Appendix 1 as it has become the first to receive national approval.

12. In October 2000 an Operational Requirement for 'less lethal' technology was drawn up between ACPO and PSDB. This requirement now acts as the standard to which all 'less lethal' technologies are tested.

13. In May 2001 representatives from the various groups working on 'less lethal' options met and agreed to act as one national project. Commander Baker is now a member of this national group.

14. In June 2001 PSDB provided an update on its research programme into these technologies. As a result of this publication ACPO split the technology being tested into three categories, being:

• Category A - technology which showed promise and should be prioritised.
• Category B - technology which requires further research over an extended time frame.
• Category C - technology which did not require further research due to poor performance.

15. One of the technologies designated as Category A was the Taser. Because of the significant public interest in this particular type of 'less lethal' technology, it is dealt with in depth at Appendix 2.

Future developments

16. The MPS 'Less Lethal' Options Working Group continues to work with relevant agencies. See Appendix 3 for membership. As further 'less lethal' technologies begin to receive national approval they will be evaluated in turn to see if they meet MPS operational need. Where this is the case the Working Group will report their findings to Management Board.

C. Financial implications

There are no financial implications specifically associated with this report.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

Report author: Commander Baker, SO Department and Inspector Stuart Dark, SO16., MPS.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: The Baton Gun

The L21A1 Baton Round fired from the L104A1 Baton gun equipped with the L181A1 optical scope was produced following criticism of earlier forms of baton round used in Northern Ireland.

Tests conducted by DERA in April 2000 showed this combination to be highly accurate, with the target area being the 'belt buckle' region. It concluded that the baton round could still cause fatal injury if it struck the head but its great accuracy would make this unlikely.

This 'less lethal' technology is only available to UK police and armed forces. Overseas law enforcement agencies have expressed interest in this 'far superior weapon than anything available as a non-lethal weapon to them.'

On the 1 June 2001 ACPO approved the introduction of this weapon for public order and as a 'less lethal' option in general policing scenarios.

Since that time the Baton gun has been used on a regular basis for public order in Northern Ireland without fatality and is available for use across the UK in public order incidents.

It has been deployed but not fired in the United Kingdom in self-defence, arrest and restraint scenarios. A number of forces have authorised its deployment in general policing.

Since June 2001 ACPO has produced some guidance in relation to the use of the Baton Gun as a 'less lethal' option. The MPS Working Party has been considering this guidance to see how it can be incorporated and developed to provide clear and comprehensive guidelines including human rights considerations, authority levels, tactical deployment, operational management and post-incident aspects. Whilst these are being tailored to the needs of the MPS they will still reflect and take into account the national standards developed by ACPO.

At the request of the MPS, DERA have just completed a supplementary medical report on the effects of the Baton Round at distances of one to twenty metres.

The MPS Working Group are currently finalising a paper for Management Board on the adoption of this system as a 'less lethal' option for general policing.

Appendix 2: Taser electrical discharge devices

Taser's (Thomas A Swift Electrical Rifle's) are produced in a variety of models by two American companies. The Taser is widely used by North American and Canadian Law Enforcement Agencies.

This technology operates by an electrical circuit being created through the subject, either by direct contact with prongs at short range or through the attachment of two small barbs fired out to maximum distance of 21 feet.

Taser has been placed within Category A in the PSDB 'less lethal' research programme. Consequently, PSDB and DERA are currently conducting medical and scientific tests on the effects of the Taser. User trials are scheduled to take place in March and a report is expected in April 2002.

There are some emerging issues on the Taser-

As a circuit loop has to be created both barbs must hit the target. This causes accuracy issues if the subject is moving.

The maximum distance of 21 feet is absolute, as this is the length of the wires attached to the barbs (the ideal distance is up to 15 feet).

Tasers cannot be used in conjunction with UK police issue CS Spray. This is because the electrical charge may ignite the liquid.

Tasers should never be used against persons carrying firearms. This is because the electrical pulse can cause muscle contraction, which may lead to involuntary raising or discharge of the weapon.

Once all the test results are known the MPS 'Less Lethal' Options Working Group will make recommendations through ACSO to Management Board.

Appendix 3: Membership of MPS 'Less Lethal' Options Working Group.

The MPS 'Less Lethal' Options Working Group is drawn from all relevant operational departments, support agencies and staff associations. Its members are:

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback