Deshidratado del aceite usado

The methodology we used for this investigation was as follows:

• review of relevant literature and research

• review and analysis of data, information and documentation provided by the NSWPF

• review of information and documentation provided by other agencies or organisations

• review and analysis of individual Taser use incidents

• focus groups with NSWPF officers

• consultation with the NSWPF.

Table. 2 summarises the activities that occurred for each research step.

Table. 2: Methodology summary

Research approach/step Activities/Information provided

Literature review We reviewed publicly available research and literature from Australia and overseas. This included reports, research studies, parliamentary debates, journal articles, websites and media reports.

Review and analysis of data, information and documentation provided by the NSWPF

The NSWPF provided extensive material on Taser use incidents (including Taser Cam video files), data and information on injury claims made by police officers, policies, operating procedures, training materials and other documentation about Taser uses and the review of those uses.

Review of information and documentation provided by other agencies or organisations

Information and documentation – e.g. transcripts, data, policies etc – was provided by a number of sources including the Local Courts of NSW, the NSW State Coroner, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, police services in Australia and New Zealand, and oversight bodies in Australia.

Analysis of Taser incident data

provided by the NSWPF We obtained and analysed information about 2252 Taser incidents from 1 October 2008 to 30 November 2011 (the review period). Detailed review and analysis of a six

month sample of Taser use incidents We conducted a comprehensive review of 631 Taser incidents that occurred between 1 June and 30 November 2010 (the sample period). We also engaged an external independent expert on use of force and operational policing who reviewed 50 of these 631 Taser incidents using the same methodology.

Focus groups with NSWPF officers We conducted three focus groups with NSWPF officers to obtain their views and experiences relating to Taser use and the associated NSWPF procedures and review processes.

Observation and inspection In late 2011, we attended the NSW Police Academy to observe the Taser user accreditation training provided to recruits, and the Taser user reaccreditation training for NSWPF officers. In late 2011, we also attended the City Central LAC to inspect the Taser storage system. Consultation with NSWPF During the course of this investigation, we have held many consultation meetings/discussions

with the NSWPF.

After our initial examination of NSWPF documentation (particularly the SOPs for Tasers) and the detailed review of 631 Taser incidents, we wrote to the NSWPF in October 2011 with a range of queries, issues and points that needed clarification. The NSWPF provided their formal written response in January 2012.

Consultation on particular issues continued during the first half of 2012.

1.5.1 Data and information provided by the NSWPF

During the course of this investigation, the NSWPF have provided extensive data, information and material (received between December 2011 and February 2012). This has included:

• For Taser uses between 1 October 2008 and 30 November 2011 (the review period) – data tables collated by the NSWPF on 2,252 Taser incidents involving general duties police officers.

• For all Taser uses between 1 October 2008 and 30 November 2010 – additional records and documents connected to 1,446 Taser incidents including Situation reports, internal documents, internal correspondence, minutes of meetings, and internal review outcomes.

• For all Taser uses between 1 December 2009 and 30 November 2010 – Taser Cam video files for all uses.

• Weapon summary reports containing Taser dataport information on Taser uses between 1 August 2010 and 30 November 2010.

• Complaints against police related to Taser use received between 1 October 2008 and 30 November 2011.

• Data on injury claims by NSWPF officers received between 2000–01 and 2010–11.

• All information and documents about the use and review of Tasers – e.g. training material, operating procedures, internal memoranda and advice.

In addition to the information provided by the NSWPF, we also had access to information about Taser incidents from the following sources:

• The NSWPF Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS) – a database used to record, assess and analyse crime information and intelligence – which we accessed to obtain further information about the Taser incidents.23

• The Police Integrity Commission Police Oversight Data Store (PODS) – a database containing data derived from a number of the NSWPF systems.24 _{We accessed PODS to obtain further information about the officers}

who deployed Tasers and the people subjected to Taser use.25

1.5.2 Review and analysis of 631 Taser incidents

As part of this investigation, we selected 631 Taser incidents that had occurred during the six month period between 1 June 2010 and 30 November 2010 (the sample period) for detailed examination. We developed a coding tool and instructions, and provided reviewer training to ensure consistency and reliability between the individual reviewers who formed part of the Ombudsman Review Team.

The review and analysis included collecting and coding information from the records and information provided by police – for example, whether a verbal warning was issued before the Taser use, the recorded reason(s) for Taser use, whether the Taser use incapacitated the subject person etc.

By the end of 2011, we had completed and assessed the incidents using criteria such as:

• the type of behaviour exhibited by the person subjected to Taser use, ranging from cooperative through to acting in a manner intended to cause grievous bodily harm or death

• whether the person subjected to Taser use had warnings on COPS that they had or were suspected to have a history of mental health issues

• whether the Taser use breached one or more of the criteria for Taser use under section 4 of the Taser SOPs26

and, if so, the reason(s) for the assessment of a breach

• whether the use of the Taser was in breach of any other sections of the Taser SOPs or was otherwise hazardous

• whether there were multiple and/or continued use of the Taser by any of the officers involved and, if so, whether such use was justified and the reasons for the assessment of unjustified Taser use (if any)

• whether any of the Taser uses were ineffective and, if so, whether all instances of ineffectiveness were noted in the written records and what the consequences of Taser ineffectiveness were

• whether the initial use of force by police was necessary in the circumstances

• whether the use of force by police during the incident was reasonable in all the circumstances

• whether adequate first aid and/or medical treatment was provided to the person

• whether any records were missing

• the quality and accuracy of the records

• whether the decisions of the Region Taser Review Panels (TRPs) were satisfactory, and the reasons for any unsatisfactory decisions

• whether the management actions taken by the NSWPF were satisfactory, and the reasons for any unsatisfactory actions.

The 631 incidents included 556 operational incidents, 65 accidental or hazardous discharges, and 10 incidents involving protection from animals. In the remainder of this report the discussion refers to the 556 operational incidents, unless explicitly mentioned.

1.5.3 Review of selected Taser incidents by an independent expert

We also engaged former NSWPF Senior Assistant Commissioner, Mr Peter Walsh APM, to conduct an independent review of a select number of Taser uses from the 556 incidents. Mr Walsh retired from the NSWPF prior to the introduction of Tasers; however, he was engaged to perform this role because of his extensive experience and seniority within the NSWPF, and his practical and expert understanding of use of force incidents involving general duties police, the NSWPF Tactical Options Model (TOM) and the LEPRA requirements on use of force.

The purpose of the independent review was to determine if there was consistency in the assessment of Taser incidents, and consistency in the understanding and application of the Taser SOPs. The 50 incidents selected for independent review represented a range of incidents – including incidents where we had issues of concern and incidents where we believed the Taser use was reasonable and in accordance with the Taser SOPs.

For each incident, Mr Walsh was asked whether the Taser use was appropriate and in accordance with the Taser SOPs. He was also asked to provide any observations on the adequacy of the Taser SOPs and SOPs relating to use of force.

Mr Walsh was provided with the same information that we had, such as:

• the relevant versions of Taser SOPs and TRP SOPs, as well as Taser documents on the NSWPF intranet27

• statements by the NSWPF about the arrangements and procedures for their internal review of Taser uses, the process for downloading and retaining Taser Cam footage and Taser dataport information, and how the Taser dataport information was used

• provisions in the NSW Police Force Handbook about arms and appointments

• the Taser Cam footage and police written records of the incidents – including COPS records, Situation reports, weapon summary reports and police internal review records.

Mr Walsh completed the final report on his independent review in December 2011 and met with us to discuss his findings in January 2012.

We then compared Mr Walsh’s assessments with our assessment on four aspects. These were:

• whether there was a breach of the criteria for Taser use (agreed 66%)

• in incidents involving multiple Taser uses, whether those uses were justified (agreed 77%)

• whether the uses of force by officers were justified (agreed 82%)

• whether the TRP review process was satisfactory (agreed 46%).

Overall, the level of consistency between our assessment and that of the independent expert was good. The aspect with the lowest agreement rate was the fourth aspect – whether the TRP review process was satisfactory. In this area, Mr Walsh agreed with our assessment on 23 of the 50 incidents (46%). Of these, the Ombudsman Review Team and Mr Walsh both assessed that the TRP review process was unsatisfactory in 20 incidents and satisfactory in three incidents. Of the remaining 27 incidents on which our views differed, Mr Walsh considered the TRP review process was unsatisfactory in five incidents and satisfactory in 22 incidents.

1.5.4 Focus groups with NSWPF officers

In late 2011, we conducted three focus groups with NSWPF officers.

The first two focus groups were with general duties police officers. The aim was to give general duties police officers who had used Tasers in an operational setting an opportunity to share their experiences of, and their views on, Taser use and the review processes. One focus group was conducted with officers from metropolitan LACs and the other was with officers from regional LACs.

To accommodate rostering issues, we gave the NSWPF a list of 60 general duties officers from each of the two policing regions, and asked them to nominate 10 officers from each of the LACs to make up the focus groups. The list of officers we gave to the NSWPF was drawn from a list of all officers who had been identified in NSWPF records as having used a Taser between 1 December 2009 and 30 November 2010.

The issues canvassed with the first two focus groups included:

• the perspective of general duties officers on the benefits of Tasers

• their views on training and operational procedures

The third focus group was with all region-based NSWPF Professional Standards Managers (PSMs). PSMs are directly involved in reviewing incidents of Taser use by general duties officers and we sought their views on:

• the process for reviewing Taser use

• the SOPs for the use of Tasers

• the process for seeking further review of a Taser use when problems have been identified, including when they would seek the advice of weapons instructors

• how feedback is provided to the Taser operators

• the limitations of the Taser Cam

• how to find out whether medical attention was provided to people who had been subjected to Taser use, if this is not clear from the written records

• trends in the use of Taser by NSWPF general duties officers.

1.5.5 Consultation on the final draft report

On 5 September 2012, a draft copy of this report was provided to the Commissioner of Police. This was to give the NSWPF an opportunity to provide feedback on the material presented, to confirm that the descriptions of police processes and practices were accurate, and to provide comments on the draft recommendations.

We received a response from the NSWPF on 20 September 2012. Where appropriate, we have included or addressed their comments and feedback, and made changes in this report.

1.5.6 Research limitations

For our investigation, we have relied on the accuracy of the data provided by the NSWPF. Possible limitations of this data include inaccuracies, incompleteness and inconsistencies. The NSWPF provided some particular qualifications on certain data – these are listed below.

Data relating to Taser incidents

For incidents involving Taser use between 1 October 2008 and 30 November 2010, the NSWPF advised of a number of limitations:

• a previous version of the Situation report form recorded less information than the new version introduced in September 2010

• Situation reports for 28 incidents were not located, possibly due to the officer’s failure to complete the report or human error

• Taser Cam footage is available for most, but not all, incidents between 1 December 2009 and 30 November 2010

• weapon summary reports are not available before August 2010.

While conducting our review of the 556 Taser incidents in the sample period, we noticed that in some cases the records were inconsistent in one or more of the following ways:

• the data in the spreadsheets provided was inconsistent with the written records

• the account provided in a COPS record was inconsistent with that in the Situation report of the same incident

• some information in the data section of a COPS record was inconsistent with the narrative section of that record

• the written accounts did not reflect what was depicted on the Taser Cam footage.

Data on injury claims made by police officers

For data on injury claims made by police officers, the NSWPF advised that data before 2008 was not an accurate reflection of the number of injuries sustained by employees. This was because:

• the creation of the Safety Command in 2005 resulted in a number of changes to the reporting of injury

• online reporting of injury claims was introduced in 2007, and the injury reporting form was also changed in 2007–08

• as the NSWPF have changed insurer in January 2011, some data from their previous insurer had not been transferred to the new insurer

• the data provided relates to all sworn officers employed after March 1988 and civilian employees only28

• it is currently not possible for the NSWPF to accurately limit data relating to injuries claims to sworn staff in field operations, so the data we were given relates to all NSWPF employees.

Data relating to people subjected to Taser use

We asked the NSWPF to provide us with data on COPS about people who were subjected to Taser use – including whether those people identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, whether any charges were laid against them following the Taser incidents, and the legal outcomes of those charges. In some cases, the legal action being taken against a person was recorded, but information about the relevant court proceedings was not.