Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of ...

Home Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev w21
— In his evidence to this Committee in December 2010 Simon Chesterton, ACPO lead, noted that the
“national guidance is that Taser should not be used in relation to public demonstrations”, and
Amnesty International UK and Omega recommend that this be made more explicit in ACPO
guidance relating to crowd control and the use of Taser.
12. Moreover other “distance weapons”, although currently not used in UK policing, are being reviewed by
the Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST). A report by CAST’s predecessor, the Home Office
Scientific Development Branch, states that directed energy weapons—including ocular weapons and millimetre
waves—”could in the future provide a capability for the UK Police to engage individuals at a greater range
and with more precision than is currently achievable”. 11 Acoustic weapons such as the Long Range Acoustic
Device (LRAD) have been used for crowd control in Canada and the USA, although not without controversy.
Such weapons have serious medical and human rights implications. Their introduction would also represent a
significant deviation from the British model of policing.
13. Acoustic weapons are relatively indiscriminate, targeting sections of the crowd instead of targeting
specific individuals within it, and the same level of exposure has been reported to affect individuals differently.
Studies have noted “very high variable individual sensitivity” 12 to acoustic weapons, with noise induced
hearing loss seeming to occur randomly. 13 There are also a number of health risks associated with the use of
such weapons, particularly at close range, loud volume and/or excessive lengths of time. Such risks range from
temporary pain 14 to permanent hearing damage. 15
14. Whilst millimetre wave systems are designed to produce nothing more than pain, or possibly short term
redness or blistering, 16 longer exposure, especially one at higher power, could lead to second or third degree
burns. If such burns occur over 20% or more of the body they become life threatening and require specialist
burns treatment. At least one such exposure was reported during official testing 17 and the risk of such
consequences may be exacerbated in crowd situations where individuals may be unable to move out of the
way of the beam.
— We recommend that ACPO guidance states more explicitly that electro-shock devices are
inappropriate for crowd control.
— We agree with the Committee’s earlier recommendation on the use of “distance weapons” for crowd
control and recommend further that there is specific reference to emerging technologies such as
acoustic and millimetre wave weapons.
Guidance on Attenuating Energy Projectiles (AEPs) and Watercanon
15. Amnesty International UK and Omega note that the police decision to refrain from using water cannon
was appropriate under the circumstances; indeed, as Sir Hugh Orde noted, it was not suitable for this type of
disturbance. 18 Further, the ACPO/APCOS/NPIA Manual of Guidance on Keeping the Peace (hitherto referred
to as Keeping the Peace) states that a possible criteria for use of Attenuating Energy Projectiles (AEP) include
“situations of serious public disorder where there is the potential for loss of life, serious injury or widespread
destruction”. Whilst the police were thus enabled to use AEPs, their decision to refrain from doing so was
appropriate under the circumstances. Indeed, as the ACPO Attenuating Energy Projectile (AEP) Guidance
(amended 16 May 2005) notes, “the AEP has not been designed for use as a crowd control technology but has
been designed for use as a less lethal option in situations where officers are faced with individual aggressors
whether such aggressors are acting on their own or as part of a group”.
16. AEPs were introduced as a safer alternative to their predecessor, the L21A1 plastic baton round.
However, an analysis of the injury patterns caused by the AEP highlighted an unexpectedly high rate of serious
injuries to the head and upper body which contradicted previous research. 19 The study found that “the AEP
requires ongoing evaluation, and it is too early to conclude that it provides a safer alternative to the L21A1.”
— We recommend that further research and evaluation is undertaken into the AEP in order to better
understand the associated injury pattern and risks.
11 HOSDB (2008). Less Lethal Technologies Review of Commercially Available and Near-Market Products for the Association of
Chief Police Officers Publication No. 49/08
12 NATO (2004). RTO Technical Report: Non-Lethal Weapons and Future Peace Enforcement Operations TR-SAS-040
13 The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety quoted in Bradford Non-lethal Weapons Research Project (2005) Nonlethal
weapons: saving lives but still serious areas of concern presented at Jane’s 8th Annual Less Lethal Weapons Conference,
the Royal Armouries, Leeds.
14 Bradford Non-lethal Weapons Research Project (2005) Non-lethal weapons: saving lives but still serious areas of concern
presented at Jane’s eighth Annual Less Lethal Weapons Conference, the Royal Armouries, Leeds.
15 NATO (2004). op cite
16 JNLWP (Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program), Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Active
Denial System, 31 Oct. 2006, www.jnlwp.com/Resources/Misc/FAQ%20FINAL%2031%20OCT%2006.pdf
17 K.Osborn, Airman injured in heat bean test, Army Times, 7 April 2007. www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/defense_
burnedairman_070405/ accessed 27 June 2011
18 Orde, H (2011). Now is not the time for the police to use water cannon and baton rounds. Available online at
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/10/water-cannons-baton-rounds-hugh-orde
19 Maguire, K et al (2005). “Injuries caused by the attenuated energy projectile: the latest less lethal option” in Emergency Medical
Journal 2007; 24:103–105