Damian O'Loan (Paris): It is not only in the UK that the introduction of Taser electronic pistols has ignited controversy.  As Amnesty’s Patrick Corrigan has highlighted here, the weapons’ implications for the Right to Life have been called into question by a judicial review to be decided in Belfast in January.  Directly comparable issues are also coming before the courts in France.

Over here, however, it is the distributors of the weapons, SMP technologies, who have been initiating the actions.  The French company has launched defamation and slander lawsuits following citations of Amnesty International figures citing up to 290 fatalities following exposure to the weapons’ 50,000-volt force.

Thus far, things have been going spectacularly badly for Taser France, which claims that its X26 “eliminates the risk of fatal mistakes.”  Under the leadership of Antoine di Zazzo, it launched an unprecedented slew of lawsuits on a high-profile targets from a cross-section of critical positions.  It launched libel proceedings against Besancenot, a popular far-left leader, and L’Express, a respected weekly news magazine.  It attacked a human rights organisation, RAIDH, for libel and for exceeding the limits of freedom of expression.  A candidate for the leadership of the opposition Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, was called upon to defend comments on television citing the Amnesty reports. 

Thus far, Taser has lost its case against RAIDH, and its Director and six other members of staff have been arrested for spying on Mr Besancenot. 

The ruling in the RAIDH case refused, in fact, to receive the charge, not recognizing SMP’s right to take umbrage at comments directed at Taser.  The judge did, when dealing with the freedom of expression charge, point to the extensive research paper presented by the body and defended its right to do so. 

In an extraordinary sequence of events involving Olivier Besancenot, the company launched defamation proceedings following his declaration that “at best, there are doubts.  At worst, Taser can kill.”  A week before the case was due to be held, and following an article in L’Express Taser France’s director was arrested for having has Besancenot’s history and financial affairs delved into, and having him spied on.  He managed this with the assistance of a private investigation company, Dussaucy, members of which also face charges, including a former police officer. Further reports suggest that Mr Di Zazzo has been rather liberal in his reports of his own history.  He is not on the records of Stanford, from which he claims to have graduated, and an employee at Motorola France, of which he claims to have been Director General, has no memory of him being there.

The result of the trial against Besancenot is due in late November; those against his alleged investigators will follow, alongside charges promised by the former.  If these, or the judicial review in Belfast, find against Taser, it will be possible to openly ascribe deaths to the weapons. This would leave the Police Service of Northern Ireland the Policing Board, for example, in an odd situation, since they have considered the human rights implications of its deployment on the basis of at first “non-lethal” and then “less-lethal” potential, according to its manufacturer.  The Belfast case also considers the Right to Protection from Torture, following criticisms of the weapon from the United Nations Committee on the Prevention of Torture. 

While a Northern Irish court has rejected calls to suspend deployment of the weapon until the judicial review’s decision, RAIDH is now launching proceedings calling for a similar suspension in France.  They also seek investigations into how the company’s lobbying access led to a monopoly supply contract, and scientific research into the operational effects of Taser deployment. 

As tensions around issues like knife crime continue to escalate, can we expect use of Tasers always to be discriminate?  If we are dealing with a lethal weapon, we must consider obligations under European and UN human rights commitments when considering any deployment, or its nature.  These commitments are not controversial, they say a state will not kill its citizens.  A police officer needs, and deserves, to know whether they risk killing a suspect before using their Taser, so all possible research and information must be prepared and made available to the police and the public.