Specialist firearms officers should wear head-mounted cameras, ombudsman recommends

The recommendation follows an investigation which found that video footage recorded by the shoulder-mounted camera of an officer who fired a Taser had been obstructed, compromising its evidential value.

Ombudsman Marie Anderson said: “Body-worn video provides valuable evidence of the circumstances in which armed officers choose to use significant levels of force.

“In this case the footage was obstructed by the officer’s other police equipment, largely due to the camera having been mounted on the chest/shoulder area.”

Specialist firearms officers in the Metropolitan Police in London were equipped with head-mounted cameras in 2017.

However, a senior PSNI officer has said the force’s “stark budgetary outlook” was affecting its investment in head-mounted cameras.

The ombudsman made the recommendation after an investigation found that an officer had been justified in firing a Taser during an incident in north Belfast in August 2021.

Officers had been deployed in response to a 999 call stating that a man had made threats to kill a member of his family.

Police located his car outside the home of his former partner. A number of children were registered as living at the address.

Armed response officers were advised that the man had a history of violence, was immune to the effects of CS Spray, and had been involved in a previous incident in which it had taken eight police officers to restrain him.The officers involved told PONI investigators that the man appeared to have been intoxicated, was irate, had blood dripping from a hand, and was holding a long slim item. They said they heard him shouting at someone else in the house.

The officer who fired the Taser said she did so when the man went to re-enter the property having being told to come out with his hands on his head.

Her account was corroborated by body-worn video footage and colleagues.

Although the first discharge of the Taser missed, a second connected and the man was then restrained by other officers.

The officer who discharged the Taser said she acted to prevent the man harming himself or others, and said she had considered other options, including the use of PAVA incapacitant spray, an AEP baton round and her handheld baton. However, she considered Taser to be the most appropriate means of resolving the situation.

Having considered the evidence, Mrs Anderson found that the use of Taser had been “reasonable, necessary and proportionate” in the circumstances, and noted that the officer had adopted a “graduated and flexible approach” to the situation in compliance with police instruction.

PSNI chief superintendent Sam Donaldson said cameras significantly improve the quality of evidence captured by officers.

He added: “As for head-mounted cameras, we acknowledge this recommendation by the Police Ombudsman and an extension of this technology is something we are keen to explore further.

“Use of head-mounted cameras was trialled by some members of our Armed Response Unit (ARU) in 2017.

“This trial resulted in equipment being issued to all ARU officers to allow for helmet-mounted cameras.

“Calls for a wider rollout of this new technology are certainly welcome, however we are working to deliver the best possible policing service to communities within our reduced budget and resources.

“Unfortunately, the stark budgetary outlook is affecting our investment in head-mounted cameras, however, we will continue to keep the use of this technology under review.”