Taser Complaints (818/15)
1a) In calendar year 2014, the total number of complaints received against officers in relation to Taser use (please also provide a figure for the number of officers complained about, if different).
1b) A breakdown for each complaint, detailing the following; a summary of the complaint including details of any injuries related to the complaint; the sex of the complainant if available; the number of officers involved; the sex and rank of the officer/s; the action taken against the officer (eg. verbal warning, written warning, outcome of any disciplinary action, suspended, fired, resigned, criminal action, referral to the IPCC),
2a and b) The same for calendar year 2013
3a and b) The same for calendar year 2012
We can confirm that relevant information is held by West Midlands Police. However, while the majority of the information is attached to this email I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release all of the information requested. Please find attached a redacted document. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) for the parts of the document that have not been released.
The Freedom of Information Act places two responsibilities on public authorities, the first of which is to confirm what information it holds and secondly to then disclose that information, unless exemptions apply.
In this case, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for the redacted parts of the attached document. The information is exempt by virtue of Section 40(2).
These exemptions and explanatory notes are shown here:
Section 40 (2) is an absolute and class based exemption if to release the information exists would breach the third party’s data protection rights. In this case to release this personal information would not constitute fair processing of the data and therefore would breach the first of the principles within the Data Protection Act 1998. As this exemption is class based I am not required to identify the harm in disclosure and in this instance I believe that the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release.