Use of tasers by the States of Jersey Police in environments where airborne hazards were present

​​​​​​Request 733297795

Request for information concerning the use of Tasers by the States of Jersey Police in environments where chemical irritants, gas, or airborne hazards were present, covering the period from March 2020 to the present.

Specifically, the request covers:

1. The total number of incidents where a Taser was drawn or discharged in situations involving the presence or recent use of chemical irritants, sprays, or airborne substances (including PAVA or CS gas), especially in enclosed environments such as homes, custody cells, or vehicles.

2. In how many such incidents the subject was known or later confirmed to have cardiac, respiratory, neurological, or mental health conditions (examples listed).

3. Internal policies, guidance, training materials, or risk assessments addressing the safety and medical risks of using Tasers in gas-contaminated or poorly ventilated environments.

4. Records of complaints, reviews, or incident investigations related to Taser use in the presence of gas or sprays, including any safeguarding failures.

Response

Under Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, a scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed the amount prescribed by the relevant Regulations.

In this case, we have identified that this request is one of multiple requests that have been submitted either:

• by the same individual; or

• by different individuals who appear to be acting in concert or as part of a coordinated campaign.

Regulation 3 of the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014 states If two or more requests for information are received:

• within a period of 60 consecutive working days (or a longer period if reasonable in the circumstances),

• from the same person or from different persons acting together, and

• the requests relate to similar or related information,

then the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests must be taken to be the total estimated cost of complying with all of them. This regulation supports Article 16(3) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. As the applicant’s previous similar request (ref. 730226037) has already exceeded the cost limitation, the States of Jersey Police decline to provide a response. 

​Article applied

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost excessive

(3) Regulations may provide that, in such circumstances as the Regulations prescribe, if two or more requests for information are made to a scheduled public authority –

(a) by one person; or

(b) by different persons who appear to the scheduled public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.​​

Internal Review Request

I am writing to formally request an internal review of your response dated [insert response date] refusing to provide information regarding the use of Tasers by States of Jersey Police in environments with chemical irritants or airborne hazards (FOI reference 733297795).

The refusal cites the estimated excessive cost based on multiple related requests submitted by me or others acting in concert. I wish to clarify that I am the sole requester of this information and am not acting in concert with any other individuals.

Moreover, this request is directly related to an incident where I was tasered by police in my own home under concerning circumstances. Access to this information is crucial for my understanding and for ensuring transparency and accountability.

I respectfully ask for a detailed breakdown of the cost estimate and would be willing to discuss narrowing the request if that would facilitate a response.

I request that you conduct a full internal review of this decision and reconsider my FOI request in light of these facts.

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the earlier decision to decline to provide information. As part of their review, they were expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law. 

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following: 

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.   

Further questions if above is a yes:   

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed? 

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

​Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld.