Taser use - PC Dan Darby (3144)

Dear North Wales Police,

I recently watched an episode of 'Beyond the line - NW traffic cops' featuring an incident featuring one of your employees, PC Dan Darby (3144).

The episode (2) is available to view here, and the incident starts at 3m10s

https://www.itv.com/hub/beyond-the-line-...

During your response, PC Dan Darby draws his taser and red dots the suspects. This despite the suspects already being in the control of the dog handler, who had seconds earlier calmly requested to the two PC's 'Stay where you are, im trying to get these two on to the road'. The dog handler had the incident under control, the suspects were complying, they were not offering any threat to any officers and the dog handler had the added protection of a dog.

PC Dan Darby spoke of 'the adrenaline rush - you know people are there, lets go and find them'. He also knew and commented 'the dogs are great', yet he chose to use a different option. No verbal warning about the use of taser were issued. PC Dan Darby appeared to be having difficulty getting over the fence and use of taser may have been used an alternative.

The suspects were released without charge. The suspects included people who could be classed as 'children and adults of a smaller stature'.

Police guidance on taser use states "Use of the taser is one of a number of tactical options available to an officer who is faced with violence or the threat of violence. Its purpose is to temporarily incapacitate an individual in order to gain control and neutralise the threat that they pose. It is not to be used to inflict severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of official duties (Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.134), article 3 Human Rights Act 1998 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment)"

Guidance also states "Officers should be aware that the pointing of a Taser at an individual represents a use of force and may in certain circumstances constitute an assault."

Therefore it appears that this officers use of a taser is against guidance and it potentially unlawful.

Could you confirm the following:

1. Does your force allow the use of tasers in the circumstances of this case (no threat)
2. Does your force allow the threat of use of tasers in the circumstances of this case
3. Do you consider the use in this case to be lawful
4. Do you consider the threat of taser in this case to be lawful
5. Has the officer faced any discipline in relation to this case
6. Has the officer faced any legal action in relation to the case
7. It is my understanding that all taser use must result in a 'record of deployment'. Please could you provide me with this document.
8. Please could you provide a copy of your forces guidance on the use of tasers.
9. Was a request made for authorisation of taser use in this incident
10. Was taser use authorised in this incident

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Jones

Dear North Wales Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of North Wales Police's handling of my FOI request 'Taser use - PC Dan Darby (3144)'.

Under the FOI act 2000 you have a legal obligation to respond to requests for information promptly and at most within 20 working days.

You have failed to comply with the law as you have not responded.

Therefore i would like to request an internal review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Jones

Dear Ceri,

I do not wish for the can to be kicked down the road on this. You can hold off on the internal review for now. I will give you until 5th November to provide a response. I believe this is more than generous. If a response has not been received by then i will be requested an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Jones

Dear North Wales Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of North Wales Police's handling of my FOI request 'Taser use - PC Dan Darby (3144)'.

My request is with regards to your response to requests 5,6 and 7.

REQUEST 5 and 6

Your comments about legitimate disclosure do not appear to make any sesnse. The whole point of considering legitimate interests is to enable the release of information where it is in the publics benefit. You seem to say that any information that is personal to an individual could never be of benefit to the public.

All Police staff must comply the Code of Ethics (https://assets.college.police.uk/s3fs-pu...).

In particular i bring your attention to the 'Policing Principals'. These include 'You are answerable for your decisions, actions and omissions', 'you are open and transparent in your actions and decisions', 'you always do the right thing' and 'you act in the public interest'.

Further in the standards of professional behaviour section they are expected to 'I will only use force as part of my role and responsibilities, and only to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.'

Section 2.2 states 'The reasons for your actions may not always be understood by others, including the public. You must, therefore, be prepared to explain them as fully as possible'.

Section 4 'use of force 4.3 'According to this standard you must use only the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve the required result.' and 4.4 'You will have to account for any use of force, in other words justify it based upon your honestly held belief at the time that you used the force.'

In the supplementary notes section 4.1.7 it states that Police should ask themselves the question 'Would I be prepared to defend this action or decision in public?'

In addition to the responsibilities the code places on general police staff, Chief Officers must 'promote openness and transparency within policing and to the public'.

Given that Police officers have a legal obligation to know and comply with the above stated Code of Ethics, and given that they operate within the public arena, it would be reasonable for a police officer to expect that any details of actions that they may take in course of their duties (whether these actions are deemed acceptable or not) could or would be made public. It is only by releasing this information that the public can
hold the Police to account for their actions. Without the public having access to such details the Code of Ethics cannot be complied with.

Further, North Wales Police itself places into the pubic domain information relating to disciplinary outcomes. For example the following is available on your website. This again provides evidence that Police officers can reasonably expect that such details would be made public.

https://www.northwales.police.uk/foi-ai/...

I believe that the legitimate interest test applies in this case:

Purpose: Allow the public to see that Police officers are complying with the Code of Ethics so that they can have faith and trust in the Police

Necessity: The code of Ethics cannot be complied with without the transparency to the public element of it

Balancing test: For the reasons that i have set out above i believe that Police staff can reasonably expect that information relating to the actions that they take as a police officer would be made available to the public (especially in the case where their standard of behavior has fallen to the level that requires disciplinary or legal action against them). Indeed without this happening the code cannot be complied with.

I therefore conclude that you should release the information i have requested.

REQUEST 7

Your response to this request seems a little confused. You state that your refusal is under section 17(5) of the FOI Act. This section states:

"A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact."

Section 12 relates to costs exceeding the specified limit. You have provided no information about this.
Section 14 relates to vexatious requests. You have provided no details about this.

You have however stated that disclosure would be a breach of the DPA and is so exempt under section 40(2).

I will assume your refusal should have been under section 17(1) and relates to the DPA and section 40(2).

You state that providing the 'use of force' form would reveal individuals and locations. However i do not believe that this is the only information that would be contained within the form. There will be other information that does not reveal individuals or locations. A more reasonable response would have been to provide the document with any sections that reveal individuals and locations redacted.

I therefore conclude that you should release the 'use of force' form with any necessary redactions.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Jones