Over the past 18 months there has been a fourfold increase in the number of times officers drew their Tasers.
The rise in use appears to coincide with a decision to increase the number of officers carrying the ‘less lethal’ weapons.
Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe sanctioned the increased availability amid concerns that unarmed officers were waiting too long for back-up.
As a result of the policy change there are now two Taser equipped vehicles patrolling 24-hours a day in each of the 32 boroughs the Met polices.
Assembly Members of all parties have repeatedly expressed concern that the weapons could be used as ‘compliance tools’ by officers to ensure suspects and detainees comply with instructions even where there’s no risk to officers or the public.
Baroness Jones wants the Met to purchase ‘Taser-cam’ – a small camera which is made by the weapon’s manufacturers and records both video and audio when the Taser is drawn.
Taser’s UK website says the attachment “is activated any time the safety is in the off position” and captures “vital audio and video information prior to, during, and after” the weapon’s use.
The force is already equipping its fleet of vans with video cameras and is trialling the use of body-worn cameras to help reduce groundless complaints against officers while providing evidence of any wrongdoing and make it easier and cheaper to convict criminals.
Speaking to MayorWatch, Baroness Jones said the introduction of Taser mounted cameras “would be a positive step and would help rebuild trust in the police.”
She added: “Their introduction would improve the accountability of individual officers and recording their deployment would bring in an element of objectivity to the encounter which is positive for the police and the public, providing they are switched on at the right time.”
Ian Hunt says
February 25, 2014 at 5:05 pmBaroness Jones is again displaying her lack of knowledge of anything Taser related.
The TASER-Cam is a pointless piece of equipment. As stated in the article, it only records when the selector lever of the Taser is set to ‘fire’. It therefore will never show what has led the officer to draw the Taser from the holster in the first place. Only recording from that point onwards will only show half a picture.
Also, the TASER-Cam would replace the XDPM that is currently fitted to all MPS Tasers. The XDPM allows officers to carry a spare cartridge on the Taser itself and therefore allows for much faster reloads, removing this capacity would have obvious safety implications.
I do agree that the use of video and audio recording equipment is vital in rebuilding trust and in protecting officers from malicious complaints.
The only sensible way of doing this is by using a ‘body-worn’ device such as Taser’s AXON flex. The advantage of a body-worn camera is that it will be recording as soon as the officer arrives at an incident and will record everything, including any use of force.
Baroness Jones does occasionally have a sensible idea, but i wish she would do her homework and perhaps speak to a specialist before making these statements.
Adam says
March 7, 2014 at 8:14 amIan, Why Promote the Taser Axon Flex which contains outdated technology recording at only 640 x 480. It is going backwards in technology. There are far more superior products available – if you are going to spend money then at least future proof it!
Procurement must be done in an open and transparent manner with Open Tenders in a competition not sole source from one supplier as Baroness Jones is suggesting.
Taser uses Evidence.com so cloud based storage owned and run by a USA company. GR8 idea lets give all our confidential evidential recordings to organisations outside of the UK. Snowden would have a field day!
Ian you also promote Body worn video- which has proved to be ineffective for Firearms officers as a weapon covers the camera mounted and worn in the centre of the chest – pointless. when you have an MP5 slung across your chest.
Body Worn Video is also useless when it comes to Public Order situations – Head or Helmet mounted is the only way to go as where the eyes go the camera lens goes. At least Head mounted can be used in all roles in policing rather than the current ‘fad’ of Body worn that can only be used properly by a small section. of Police officers.
Reading your final sentence Ian, your wish to see specialists advising policy influencers is admirable, but the rest of your post shows you aren’t the ‘specialist’ to be consulted.
Ian says
March 7, 2014 at 9:56 amHello Adam.
Nice to see other people taking an interest in this topic.
Firstly let me clarify that I am not promoting Axon-flex, I was just giving the name as an example of a body worn system.
I agree completely that procurement needs to be an open and transparent process, and I’m sure it will be.
Your thoughts on body worn cameras are interesting. I think there will always be positives and negatives for any method of carriage for the camera.
A glasses mounted system, for example, could potentially cause issues for our colleagues that wear spectacles and those who wish to wear sunglasses whilst driving but not whilst out of the vehicle.
And yes, I appreciate that body worn systems can be obscured at times.
As for public order situations, as neither Taser or Firearms are ever deployed in these circumstances (with the exception of a Baton Gun) I can’t see why you’re even mentioning it.
Having not tested either type of system myself I wouldn’t like to express an opinion about which is ‘better’.
I’m not sure why you felt the need to make a personal comment at the end of your reply. At no point have I claimed to be an expert with regards to camera systems, but I’m sure there are plenty around that Baroness Jones could have spoken to.
Adam says
March 7, 2014 at 11:13 amHi Ian,
I meant nothing personal – misread your final sentence.- Apologies.
Procurement of Body cams by various Forces over the last year would seem to have been anything but open and transparent – just look at the FOI requests on Body worn Video – See ‘What do they Know’ which I have recently been made aware of.
I mention public order as if forces are going to purchase a camera system it is better to have one that can be used in all types of scenario – rather than one that cannot be used as Firearms Officers aren’t ‘regularly’ deployed. However with the increase of Taser Officers then…..
The Home Office Guidance for Police Use of Body Worn Video published in Mid 2007 ( freely available in the public domain) is a good source for ‘Direction’ although some Forces have completely ignored the listed MANDATORY requirements as they evidentially don’t believe that Home Office Guidance is applicable to them and thus can be ignored. The Document lists as mandatory requirements for example that devices should have a replay facility and viewing screen; a battery life of in excess of 4 hours etc
Not much Point having a Home Office that provides direction to Forces with mandatory requirements and then allows Forces to do what they want. ACPO should be publically enforcing Home Office guidance. It could be viewed as poor leadership otherwise? 2007 may seem a long time ago but as nothing has been published to refresh / update this guidance then this is the one that is most recent. and thus applicable.to all.