No shock in Taser debate

From Pete Lightbody.

HAVING followed the debate on the introduction of Tasers, and reviewed both the Scrutiny report and ministerial response, it was of no great surprise to see that the States of Jersey Police appear to have deliberately manipulated the facts to try to strengthen their position.

Regardless of numerous other issues, and the opinion of the public that clearly go against the introduction, the key recommendation of the report was that: The minister’s report should include an assessment of incidents in Jersey where the deployment and use of a Taser might have been considered.

I believe what the Scrutiny Panel was suggesting was a full and unbiased statistical analysis of all incidents of violent crime over a sample period of 5-10 years (with supporting data and reports made available to the panel) so that an informed decision could be reached.

What was somewhat alarming, and clearly indicative of the fact that both the States of Jersey Police and said minister had no intention of doing such a review was their comments in the response, that stated they would only ‘give some recent examples where Tasers would have been issued to Officers were they available at the time’.

One could only assume from this response, and the report in the Jersey Evening Post, that the States of Jersey Police, and minister concerned, felt the introduction of Taser was a done deal, and in their minds the concerns of the Scrutiny Panel and Islanders represented a slightly annoying administrative process that they did not have to comply with.

In addition one might also deduce from their actions that having looked at past incidents the States of Jersey Police felt that the facts clearly did not support their arguments. If this were the case, these actions would seem to indicate that the assertion that a ‘clear tactical’ gap (a direct and misleading quote from the ministerial response) exists is, in fact, an unsubstantiated claim.

While it is impossible to determine from the evidence available whether Senator Le Marquand was inadvertently misled, or in fact colluded in this process, the fact that he signed off the ministerial response documents is a damning indictment of his professional competency and judgment.

Ultimately once again both the credibility of the States of Jersey Police and our elected government has been damaged by the actions of a few.

Regardless of the final decision on this emotive issue, what is now clear is that a full review of past incidents must take place before any further debate, and that the actions of those concerned should be reviewed by both the Chief Minister and the States of Jersey Police Chief Officer. Honesty and integrity is not much to ask for, is it?