Examination of Witness (Questions 1-47)
KEVIN COLES
7 DECEMBER 2010
Q1 Chair:
This is a one-off session of the Home Affairs Select Committee
into Tasers. Could I refer all those present to the Register of
Members' Interests, where the interests of all Members are noted?
Are there any other interests that need to be declared formally?
Mark Reckless: I am a
member of the Kent Police Authority.
Chair: Mr Reckless is
a member of the Kent Police Authority.
Alun Michael: My son is
the Chief Executive of the North Wales Police Authority.
Q2 Chair:
Mr Michael's son is the Chief Executive of the North Wales Police
Authority.
Mr Coles, thank you for coming to give evidence to
us today. I know you have your legal representative with you,
but we will be directing questions to you.
Before I begin, may I make just a very short statement?
This is an inquiry generally into the issue of Tasers. I would
like to clarify that this evidence session is not regarding the
death of Raoul Moat, although issues relating to it may well be
the subject of questioning. The death of Mr Moat is currently
the subject of an IPCC investigation. Prosecutions are ongoing
against those alleged to have aided Mr Moat and, as such, must
be considered sub judice. However, the preceding events that led
to Tasers that were not authorised by the Home Office being given
to Northumbria Police are not sub judice. As Northamptonshire
Police have concluded their investigation into the conduct of
Pro-Tect Systems Limited and have announced that they are not
intending to prosecute, we may question witnesses about that.
That is what we are interested in today.
Mr Coles, to start off with, if I could ask you:
can you take us through the events of July of last year, when
your company supplied these Tasers to a number of police authorities?
Kevin Coles: Well,
the supplies, as far as we were concerned—and our legal
representation had told us—we thought we were in order to
supply. Presumably you're just talking about the X12 and XREP
Tasers. We were content that we could supply those to Lincolnshire
Police, in the first instance, which is one of the instances.
Also, with the case in July, when my business partner took it
upon himself to come to the aid of Northumbria Police and take
the units to them, we didn't think there was anything wrong in
the supply, but obviously the transport did become an issue and
hence us losing our section 5 authority.
Q3 Chair:
How many police forces did your company supply these Tasers to,
because they were obviously unauthorised by the Home Office?
Kevin Coles: We
were allowed to bring them into the country. We were allowed to
hold them. We thought the original section 5 authority we had
covered us for all Taser devices, and we had letters that reinforced
that from the Americans that "Taser" is a generic word—not
unlike "Hoover" for vacuum cleaners—that covers
all sorts of devices within their scope. The only force that we
had supplied was Lincolnshire Police so that the NPIA could show
them to prospective firearms instructors. They were just for the
purposes of seeing the emerging technology. That technology has
been used successfully elsewhere in the world for 18 months, and
it has been in development for six years or so. I myself have
been wired into it—very effective, very safe and very accurate.
Q4 Chair:
Which were the police forces that you supplied to?
Kevin Coles: Sorry.
Lincolnshire Police and Northumbria Police.
Q5 Chair:
As far as you are aware, was it only Northumbria that used these
Tasers, or had Lincolnshire also used them?
Kevin Coles: The
delivery was made to Northumbria Police by my business partner.
When I questioned him about it afterwards—he'd had 32 years
as a police officer; very experienced—he said to me that
he had taken them to Northumbria Police and he quoted article
2 of the Human Rights Act. It was something that I wasn't aware
had taken place, so obviously I did ask him about it. Lincolnshire
Police—it was just for the purposes for the NPIA to train,
show and exhibit.
Q6 Chair:
So as far as you are aware, Lincolnshire Police never used these
Tasers?
Kevin Coles: Oh,
no, they certainly didn't use them.
Q7 Chair:
Only Northumbria?
Kevin Coles: They
were delivered to Northumbria. Lincolnshire Police didn't use
them. They were just for display purposes.
Q8 Chair:
Yes. And would this request come by way of a letter, or would
they send you an e-mail: "Please supply X number of Tasers"?
Kevin Coles: We'd
have an official order come through, yes, in the normal way, with
all the other Taser products—the cartridges and the X26.
We would have an official order come through to the company.
Q9 Chair:
And obviously your partner, Mr Boatman, committed suicide shortly
after these events took place?
Kevin Coles: They
haven't come to a decision on his passing yet. It is still waiting
on the inquest.
Chair: Right. Sorry.
Kevin Coles: It
was widely reported in the media that way, which caused a lot
of distress to the family, because there is some debate about
that.
Q10 Chair:
But you have now had your licence terminated by the Home Office.
Kevin Coles: Yes,
we have.
Q11 Chair:
Did that come as a surprise to you?
Kevin Coles: Yes,
although once it was made clear that the delivery was in breach,
obviously that was a sanction that the Secretary of State had.
We're very sorry that the delivery took place now, for obvious
reasons, but I can fully understand why that sanction was put
in place.
Q12 Chair:
To be clear to the Committee, your contract has been terminated,
but you are still authorised to deal with this in the interim?
Kevin Coles: In
the interim.
Q13 Chair:
Is there another company that is able to do this work?
Kevin Coles: We
have a temporary authority to the end of December. By chance,
our authority actually expired at the start of September at the
end of a three-year authority, so we had a very short 20-day authority
because the decision wasn't announced. So we had a 20-day authority
that we could still trade as normal.
Legal Advisor:
Is there another company?
Chair: Sorry, it is important
that, if you have anything to say to your client, you pass him
a note rather than interrupt his evidence to the Committee.
Legal Advisor:
I apologise. I was anxious that he answered your question. That
was what I was asking him to do.
Q14 Chair:
I see. Thank you for that. You are at liberty to pass him a note
if you wish because the whole Committee would very much like to
hear what he is saying.
One final question from me: on 31 December, when
your temporary licence expires, who will be authorised to supply
Tasers?
Kevin Coles: Taser
International approached the Home Office. They'd found a new distributor
for the UK. Obviously the Home Office then wanted to go through
a number of investigations. Historically, they can take a month
or two—it does take a bit of time to go through all the
details. They have to do firearms licence and have to do inspections
and I presume—
Q15 Chair:
At the moment there is nobody who can take over?
Kevin Coles: No.
They appointed a distributor, but then had to get a section 5
authority, and my understanding is that was granted on Friday
last week. So there is a replacement company and a new section
5 distributor in place. I believe they have to get one or two
things sorted out on security and stuff, but once those are in
place, which is a very simple fix, there will then be a transition.
Q16 Mark Reckless:
I think I may now be clear on this, but I thought you had said
that you had taken advice and were supplying to Northumbria because
of article 2, which I'd assumed was article 2 right to life in
the ECHR?
Kevin Coles: That
was what my business partner said. I've never been a police officer—I
was more the business end and my business partner was our resident
expert. Obviously I questioned it, because I did say to him basically,
"Why didn't you—" He went in the very early hours
of the morning. He'd had a telephone conversation and he'd gone
off in the early hours of the morning. I wasn't aware that he'd
gone until the following morning. I said, "Well, why didn't
you give me a shout?", and in truth I would have gone with
him because I thought it was in order. As I say, we did have a
pretty generic authority for all Taser devices. Obviously the
delivery to Northumbria was a problem because it was one person,
which is why, ultimately, I think the authority was taken away
from us.
Q17 Mark Reckless:
Mr Coles, just to clarify if you—or perhaps your legal advisor—are
able, when you referred now to article 2, and that being the basis
on which you supplied, we had assumed that would be a reference
to article 2 of the ECHR?
Kevin Coles: It
was. That was what my business partner said. I didn't know the
supply was going to take place, but when I said to him—
Q18 Mark Reckless:
Mr Coles, if I could just interrupt. We have had a letter from
one of the Ministers, Mr Brokenshire, which refers to article
2 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms.
We just wondered whether the reference might be to that, or is
it to the ECHR—or do you not know?
Kevin Coles: I
thought it was Human Rights. Normally, in those circumstances,
he would quote something to me and, in truth, I just took it that
he knew what he was talking about and I sort of nodded. I thought
it was to do with human rights and the right to life.
Q19 Dr Huppert:
I am fascinated by your description that it was a very, very early
trip. There is something that seems a bit odd about a rush delivery
of weapons somewhere in the wee hours of the morning. But can
I ask a bit more—
Kevin Coles: I
can elaborate on that if you want.
Dr Huppert: Right, yes.
Kevin Coles: It
was because he'd been in conversation and the situation was pretty
unique—it was an emergency situation—and with him
having been a police officer for 32 years and used to putting
himself in harm's way. With hindsight, it was definitely a rushed
trip, but it was him wanting to help because he knew a technology
was there that could save somebody's life.
Q20 Dr Huppert:
Presumably that means there is no way the people this was supplied
to could have been trained in it? If it was a rush job it was,
"Here's a weapon; go and use it".
Kevin Coles: The
launch platform is a shotgun and all firearms officers are very
well acquainted with shotguns, and it is a very simplistic platform.
It's not unlike shooting an air rifle, because it has a very low
primer and it has no recoil and not a lot of sound, and it is
very accurate. It's a very simple piece of equipment.
Q21 Dr Huppert:
If we talk about the shotgun, yes, it is a very large shotgun.
According to Taser International's web page it "Autonomously
generates neuromuscular incapacitation for 20 continuous seconds".
So it is different from a shotgun. It is different from the existing
Tasers, which give a shock only when the trigger is pulled. So
are you saying that, although this is a completely different class
of weapon, no training would be required for it to be used in
an emergency basis, and this didn't ring any alarms?
Kevin Coles: The
shotgun is the launch platform. You could say it's almost like
a little satellite. The launch platform is the shotgun, but it's
not tethered; it's not wired. It's just, if they can use a shotgun,
what type of projectile is inside it is almost an irrelevance.
Because if they're doing a breaching round or a solid slug, as
long as they understand the principles of the shotgun, they can
shoot it accurately.
Q22 Dr Huppert:
Mr Coles, I am sure that they could hit the person they are trying
to hit—that is not my concern. My concern is: would they
be using this appropriately? Because they would have had no experience
with something that gives a 20-second continuous shock. They would
have no idea what the impact of that was, how lethal it might
be or how much of a deterrent it might be.
Kevin Coles: It's
certainly not lethal. They've used it operationally elsewhere
in the world. It's been six years in development.
Q23 Dr Huppert:
But people weren't trained.
Kevin Coles: They
would all have had training with shotguns and the technology,
and my understanding from my business partner was that he did
run the instructors through some slides, explained all the equipment,
what its capabilities were and how it worked. Officers from Northumbria
Police had been to a conference in America about 18 months prior
and had witnessed the presentations and the training. Although
they weren't involved in the firearms section, they were well
aware of the capabilities of the system.
Q24 Alun Michael:
Sorry, I was thinking about that answer. Can you run us through
the procurement situation as it stands at the moment? What is
the system?
Kevin Coles: Prior
to us being in a state where we can no longer import equipment
from America, the system would be that we would have an e-mail
or a letter come through the post for Tasers or cartridges to
be delivered to the armoury, whichever police headquarters that
might be.
Q25 Alun Michael:
Can you go into a bit more depth? One of the issues here is that
it is up to police authorities, or chief constables, what they
authorise to use within the requirements of seeking to protect
the public and all the rest of it. But there is an authorisation
of specific technologies. How do you differentiate between those
when you receive the sort of orders that you've described?
Kevin Coles: These
two orders were obviously unique. In the past, the equipment has
been the M26 in the first instance, starting back in about 2002
or 2003—or 2001, in the case of what was then PSDB. Also,
incidentally, Lincolnshire Police were very early to support this
type of technology.
Q26 Alun Michael:
So, with the exception of these two orders, they were always of
equipment that was authorised under the regulatory process?
Kevin Coles: For
an M26 and X26, yes. In the early days, forces took on the equipment
to evaluate, not for operation. They would be an evaluating force.
There were about five forces. HOSDB—it was then PSDB—took
it on as a project and then what they would do, historically,
was to run handling trials, and obviously the medical and scientific
trials at PSDB or HOSDB. It would then go out for very limited
operational trials within a restricted number of forces. So I
believe they've been looking at the technology in various forms
now for nine years.
Q27 Alun Michael:
In that sense, in advance of specific—what are described
as less-lethal—weaponry being authorised through the regulations,
there would have been that process of them being purchased and
used by police forces within that.
Kevin Coles: Yes.
Certainly I believe we had orders from, as I say, five: West Yorkshire
Police, Northants Police. Actually, with Northants Police, I
believe that their chief constable had got some Tasers in about
1999. They were looking at them as a concept. In the early days,
there were about five forces involved and then it grew from there
over time. But forces could certainly look at new technologies,
and we were permitted to because our authority was open on Taser
devices. They were the forces we dealt with.
Q28 Alun Michael:
If there was an order for an item that wasn't authorised—that
had not been through that whole process—would that be a
matter for you as the supplier, or a matter for the police who
were ordering the item?
Kevin Coles: We
wouldn't have been able to bring them into the country if it wasn't
authorised at some level by somebody. You can't just bring in
technology and, because our section 5 authority is Tasers, we
sometimes have to get some clarification to bring new Taser devices
in. It's more to do with import licensing, because they can look
very different but they are still a Taser. In the past, we've
had some clarification on whether it okay for us to bring in—
Q29 Alun Michael:
From?
Kevin Coles:
Normally from the Home Office, or it might be that HOSDB want
to look at something because it's a clarification thing. We always
felt that we could bring them in on our licences—on our
section 5 authority—but they do look very different, although
in essence they are all Tasers.
Q30 Mark Reckless:
I had a concern over reports that a bidding war among police forces
was set off by the removal of your licence. I just wonder if I
could clarify—particularly in September—the sequence
of events and whether there was a period when your supply was
exhausted but you still had a licence and, if so, whether you
brought anything in in that period?
Kevin Coles: In
truth, it probably came more to light in August. You need to apply
for a new section 5 authority probably four weeks—possibly
six weeks—in advance. Your registered firearms dealership
is something you need to have in place first, because that expires
at the same time. Historically, what you do is you apply for a
new registered firearms dealership and they do all the inspections
on security, and then you apply for your section 5 once that's
in order. As I say, we had this where it was due for renewal on
9 September. Obviously the events of July did make things a little
difficult, because it caused a few delays, so we didn't have an
authority in place for us to bring in a lot of equipment from
America.
Had we lost our authority in September, we could
have been sitting on a lot of stock, so we had allowed our stock
to run down. We did have orders coming in. We filled orders on
first come, first served. Some forces, if they're small forces,
buy almost a year's supply; others tend to stagger it. Certainly
our impression was that the stock was going fairly swiftly. We
did apply for another import licence, which we didn't manage to
get through, because it corresponded with us getting a one-month
extension that only really spanned 20 days. It's impractical to
use an import licence to bring stuff in from America, and to distribute
the equipment potentially before you've lost your authority. You're
talking about pretty catastrophic financial losses if you bring
a lot of stuff in and you cannot distribute it.
As it happened, they wouldn't grant us an import
licence without checking with the Home Office, and we didn't get
an import licence anyway, so when we ran out of stock, we couldn't
use our short-term section 5 authority to import any more equipment.
With the three-month one that we have to dispose of stock, we
only have Tasers themselves in stock. We don't have ammunition
or cartridges, and that's what everybody seems to need. So, potentially,
we couldn't supply from the end of August through to the end of
December but for Taser International finding another distributor
and the Home Office evaluating them in a pretty timely manner
to get them in place.
Q31 Chair:
Let us be clear on this: are there police forces at the moment
that have the Tasers but do not have the cartridges?
Kevin Coles: They
will have some. Certainly they have to look at their training
programmes and we've been led to believe that—
Q32 Chair:
Forget about training. The question was: are there some police
forces that have the Tasers but do not have the cartridges?
Kevin Coles: I
don't believe so, but with the people you have here today, I'm
sure they are better placed to know what the situation is.
Q33 Chair:
But you have no cartridges left in stock on your shelves?
Kevin Coles: No,
we haven't had for a number of weeks.
Q34 Chair:
What is going to happen on 31 December? Will you have any Tasers
left?
Kevin Coles: They'll
either be surrendered to Northamptonshire Police, or it might
be that they're allowed to be transferred to the new distributor.
That's yet to be decided, but certainly—
Q35 Chair:
Who will decide that?
Kevin Coles: The
Home Office.
Q36 Chair: How many
do you have in stock? Are these your Tasers? Have you paid for
them?
Kevin Coles:
Yes.
Q37 Chair:
So why should the Home Office decide what happens to them?
Kevin Coles:
My understanding is—
Q38 Chair: You will
sell them to the Home Office, will you, not give them to them?
Kevin Coles:
No. Well, I would hope so. I have 272 in stock.
Q39 Chair: You have
272 Tasers at the moment?
Kevin Coles:
I have.
Q40 Chair: So it
is like a bargain sale to police authorities: you can sell by
31 December; two for the price of one?
Kevin Coles:
We have looked at that possibility but, at the moment, because
it's the cartridges that they are most in need of, certainly the
sales of Tasers themselves have somewhat dried up.
Q41 Chair: But at
the end of the period, when your contract finishes, say you have
200 left, you will sell those to the Home Office?
Kevin Coles:
I need to have the authority—instead of transferring to
a police force—to transfer to the new distributor because
then, obviously, that would save them from being crushed or whatever
they are going to do with them?
Q42 Chair: They crush
them if they can't use them?
Kevin Coles:
Some do. Whatever their policy is on destroying firearms, I would
imagine.
Q43 Dr Huppert:
I am still astonished by some of the responses that we have had
through the session. You seem to have a remarkably cavalier attitude
to the details of your trade. We have heard the term "Taser"
might be general or might be specific. You were not quite clear
about that. We have heard that you were not that clear on some
of the rules that applied. You thought things were allowed, but
possibly they were not. There was some article 2 thing—we're
not quite sure what it was about—and that was the reason
for an early morning delivery. Do you agree with me that this
doesn't seem very professional? Have Taser International made
any comments? Would this be the standard that we would expect
to find of another firearms supplier?
Kevin Coles: In
truth, my business partner would have been here today. He was
our expert. I was more on the financial and business side, and
he would have been able to answer your questions fully, I'm sure.
So I apologise if I've appeared woolly or that I don't quite know
where you want me to focus on in my answers. But I am convinced—and
also my legal representation looking at our authority—that
our Taser authority was generic. We have a letter from Taser International
saying the word "Taser" is generic and covers all the
devices that they produce.
Q44 Chair:
How do you feel your company has been treated?
Kevin Coles: Well,
it has been a very, very difficult time. I have to accept that
the transfer of the goods to Northumbria delivery was in breach
of how we were supposed to deliver with two people. But, other
than that, I have to say we felt as if we've been treated pretty
shabbily. But the authority is drafted in such a way that at any
time the Secretary of State can remove that authority if you are
in breach. We are in breach. I suppose you do think that maybe
it's been a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but we are where
we are and we have to accept that.
Q45 Chair:
How many former police officers work for you company? You are
not yourself a police officer?
Kevin Coles: No,
no, never been a police officer.
Q46 Chair:
Was your partner a—
Kevin Coles: He
was a police officer for 32 years.
Q47 Chair:
Which force?
Kevin Coles: With
Northamptonshire. He held the Queen's Police Medal and many bravery
awards. He was a recognised use-of-force expert, and he travelled
around the world lecturing and training on various aspects. As
I say, he would have been uniquely placed to sit here before you
and I can only apologise for not being able fill his shoes very
well.
Chair: We understand,
but we are very grateful to you. The Committee is very grateful
to you for your time. Thank you for coming here and for your memorandum.
It has been very helpful. Thank you very much.
Kevin Coles: Thank
you.
| 
