Memorandum submitted by Northumbria Police
I refer to your letter dated 11 October 2010 which
details the inquiry into firearms control being carried out by
the Home Affairs Committee.
I will of course endeavour to assist the inquiry
but must point out that there are ongoing enquiries by both the
IPCC and the Coroner. I am therefore constrained from providing
some of the details you have requested at this time. However,
to be of assistance I trust the below paragraphs provide sufficient
information within the constraints outlined.
As the Home Office have already confirmed, the police
were legally able to acquire the XRep by Taser, being deemed Crown
Servants.[1]
This legal position is maintained in the statutory guidance.[2]
The XRep by Taser is not "authorised",
but it was not illegal, for the police to use it.
Knowing that the XRep was not authorised, my officers
had to balance in the circumstances of this individual case, a
known breach of the statutory guidance against a potential clear
breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
by failing to do everything possible to discharge the state's
positive statutory duty to preserve life.
Decisions were taken by the Gold and Silver Commander
after the receipt of legal advice. Further legal advice had been
given earlier in the operation by specialist Counsel from Chambers
in London, regarding the supremacy of the state's obligation under
Article 2.
This was an exceptional case which called for exceptional
measures. Using an "unauthorised weapon", is not ideal
and would only be contemplated in such extreme cases, where no
other option is available - as was the situation in this case.
As Chief Constable, I have a positive duty to ensure
that all operations are as safe as possible. I have a common law
duty to protect the public and uphold the law. I have a statutory
duty to my own officers and staff under the Health and Safety
at Work Act to protect their safety and welfare. Whilst effectively
detained by my officers, I had a duty to preserve Mr Moat's right
to life.
In order to discharge those duties, in the circumstances
of this specific case, it remains the view of all of those involved
that the deployment of the XRep was not only justified, but that
the police would have failed in those duties had the XRep not
been made available.
However, I conclude by reassuring you that the use
of an unauthorised weapon was done with full knowledge of all
of those involved and was done in what were exceptional circumstances,
in good faith, following legal advice and in order to preserve
life/lives.
November 2010
1 See S54 (3) Firearms Act 1968. Back
2
The Home Office Code of Practice on Police Use of Firearms and
Less Lethal Weapons. Back
| 
