Taser use involving individuals with VSD and Autism

​​Request 730226037

Dear FOI Officer,

Under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, I am requesting information regarding the use of Tasers by the States of Jersey Police involving individuals with specific medical conditions.

Please provide details for the period 1 January 2020 to the present about all incidents where Tasers were drawn or discharged on persons known or later confirmed to have:

Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD)

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or related neurodevelopmental conditions

Specifically, I request:

1. The total number of incidents involving persons with these conditions.

2. Summaries or anonymised descriptions of each incident, including date, location, and outcome.

3. Any policies, training materials, or internal guidance concerning Taser deployment on individuals with such medical or developmental conditions.

4. Records of any complaints, investigations, or reviews related to these incidents.

Note on Proportionality and Vulnerabilities:

The deployment and discharge of Tasers must adhere to the principle of proportionality — meaning the level of force used should be necessary and appropriate to the threat posed. This is especially critical when individuals involved have medical vulnerabilities such as VSD or autism, which may increase their risk of harm.

Further, under the legal doctrine known as the “eggshell skull” principle, authorities are responsible for the full extent of harm caused to individuals with pre-existing conditions, even if such harm is unexpectedly severe. Force that might be considered proportionate in general may cause disproportionate injury to vulnerable persons, highlighting the importance of careful assessment and tailored response.

Understanding how these principles are interpreted and applied in practice by the States of Jersey Police is essential for transparency, accountability, and ensuring the safety and dignity of all individuals.

If any information is exempt or restricted, please apply anonymisation rather than refuse disclosure where reasonably possible.

I understand the statutory 20-working-day response period. Please inform me if fees or clarifications are needed.

Thank you for your assistance.

Response

1. Total Number of Incidents Involving Persons with the Specified Conditions

Please note: The information provided below pertains only to incidents where a Taser was discharged. Data regarding incidents where a Taser was drawn or laser-dotted is only recorded when the attending officer perceived the individual to be experiencing a mental health crisis. It is not routinely recorded whether individuals had a confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or other neurodevelopmental conditions in such cases. It is estimated that to conduct a case-by-case review to determine confirmed diagnoses would require in excess of 17 hours of officer time which is beyond the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Article 16 has been applied and this portion of the request is declined.

During the specified period, there were five (5) recorded incidents where a Taser was discharged on individuals later known or confirmed to have the following conditions:

1. Asperger’s Syndrome

2. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) – diagnosed four years post-incident

3. Personality Disorder

4. Asperger’s Syndrome

5. Unstable Personality Disorder

There are no known incidents involving individuals with Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD) or any other heart defect.

2. Summaries of Each Incident

To protect the identity of individuals involved, specific dates and locations have been omitted. Below are anonymised summaries of each incident:

• Incident 1:

Location: Police Custody

Summary: Individual became highly aggressive in custody and bit an officer. Taser was deployed to gain control.

Year: 2021

• Incident 2:

Location: Large Retail Store

Summary: Male involved in anti-social behaviour (ASB) brandished a knife and threatened a worker. He was non-compliant and aggressive towards officers. Taser deployed.

Year: 2021

• Incident 3:

Location: Outside Home Address

Summary: Male experiencing suicidal ideation pulled a knife while speaking with an officer. He was unresponsive to negotiation and raised the knife. Taser deployed and individual safely detained.

Year: 2022

• Incident 4:

Location: Cycle Path

Summary: Male damaged property and assaulted a carer. Charged at officers with a bag. Initial Taser discharge was ineffective; follow-up contact Taser was effective. PAVA spray also used.

Year: 2022

• Incident 5:

Location: Home Address

Summary: Female answered the door with visible self-harm injuries and began slashing her arms with a razor blade. Taser deployed, razor blades dropped, and first aid administered.

Year: [Year not specified]

3. Policies, Training Materials, and Internal Guidance

The following principles from the National Police Firearms Training Curriculum are emphasized when dealing with individuals in mental health crisis or with neurodevelopmental conditions:

BUGEEL Principles:

• Be prepared to back off – Tactical withdrawal if de-escalation fails

• Use effective cover – Maintain safety while assessing the situation

• Give time and space – Reduce tension and allow for measured responses

• Early negotiation – Attempt verbal de-escalation

• Evacuate immediate area – Protect bystanders

• Less Lethal Options – Consider all alternatives before Taser use

4. Complaints, Investigations, or Reviews

There have been no complaints received in relation to the above incidents.

Article applied 

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

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations. 

(b)     endanger the physical or mental health of an individual.​