Tuesday 26th October 2004, Derry Journal
The Derry based human rights group, the Pat Finucane Centre, has responded to claims made by the PSNI chief Richard Russell over the use of CS spray
A spokesperson for the PFC said: "The District Commander of the PSNI in Derry, Richard Russell, has defended the weekend use of CS spray in a statement in which he said, 'as an alternative to being hit over head with a piece of wood, which is what a baton is, I think that is a better alternative.'
"Following the last meeting of the District Policing Partnership Chief Superintendent Russell admitted to the Pat Finucane Centre in a conversation that CS spray had been used, on at least one occasion in July, on an individual under restraint, handcuffed in other words."
The Human Rights group continued: "It is difficult to imagine any situation where the action of 'being hit over the head with a piece of wood, which is what a baton is' could be justified on an individual who was already handcuffed and in the custody of a number of officers.
"It follows that the use of CS spray in this incident could hardly be described as a 'better alternative'."
The group went on: "Though this information was put in the public domain at the time no member of the District Policing Partnership questioned the PSNI about this at the next meeting of the DPP. This is disappointing to say the least.
"The District Commander, in answer to a written question from the PFC, admitted that guidelines permitted the use of CS spray on handcuffed individuals if 'the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided. In all such cases officers must be prepared to justify not only their use of the spray, but also their decision to use it in these circumstances'.
"Despite the ' exceptional' circumstances apparent in the guidelines the very first use of CS spray anywhere in the North was on an individual who was handcuffed.
"This highlights a fundamental problem with the guidelines."
The Pat Finucane centre went on: "The Policing Board voted to supply CS spray to the PSNI without proper consultation and, critically, without Board members having any right of veto over the eventual guidelines.
"In a situation where Board members failed to consult with experts critical of the use of CS spray prior approval by the Board of any eventual guidelines should have been set as a minimal precondition. It was not.
"In a statement issued on February 2003 the Policing Board stated that it had, 'sought assurances that stringent guidelines are in place for the use of CS Incapacitant Spray...'
"This suggested that guidelines were already in place. In fact General Order 28/2004, which outlines the operational guidelines, was not issued until 19 May 2004. "This is the document that permits the use of CS spray on individuals while restrained or handcuffed. Following the February 2003 meeting that approved CS spray there is no further reference in the minutes of Policing Board meetings to any member seeking assurances that ' stringent guidelines' were in fact being put in place.
"Board members appear to have washed their hands of the issue and allowed the PSNI Operations Branch to frame their own guidelines."
The group concluded: "PSNI officers are trained in the use of CS spray in a so-called 'Conflict Resolution Skills' course. "Evidence to date suggests that the controversial use of this chemical weapon has aggravated not resolved conflict."