Serious concerns over authorisation of powerful new Taser day after BBC exposes ongoing racist and misogynistic behaviour of police and misuse of force

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE), part of Just for Kids Law, is deeply concerned over the authorisation of a new, more powerful model of Taser - Taser 10 - which police forces will be able to use on children. This is particularly alarming in light of recent BBC undercover reporting for the Panorama programme, which revealed continuing racist and misogynistic behaviour by the police and an abuse of use of force powers.

Medical and psychological risks for children

Tasers can already inflict intolerable pain. Taser 10 introduces new and serious risks as the barbs are heavier than previous models and launched at greater velocity. This has specific physiological implications for children, who are smaller in stature, have thinner skin, and reduced body wall-to-organ proximity. Unlike earlier models, Taser 10 barbs must penetrate the skin to deliver an electrical current. This requirement raises the disturbing possibility of officers targeting more vulnerable areas, such as the neck or head, to ensure contact. Children also frequently wear lighter clothing, like sportswear, increasing the chance of full-depth barb penetration.

As early as 2012 by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council Sub-Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons (DOMILL) that children face increased vulnerability to injuries to the lungs, liver, eyes and brain, particularly from facial or neck-area shots from Taser use. It successor body, the Scientific Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) has now concluded that Taser 10’s design means that risks to children are further exacerbated stating:

“The less mature anatomy of younger children may make them more susceptible to discharge and probe injuries. Such susceptibilities include a thinner body wall which puts underlying tissues and organs (including the heart) at greater risk from skin-perforating Taser 10 probes… A thinner skull may mean that skull-perforating darts have greater potential to injure the brain… Discharge-induced falls may also have more serious consequences for younger children due to a higher risk of bone fracture arising from bone immaturity.”

We do, however, welcome the fact that Taser 10 cannot be used in drive-stun mode, in which the weapon is placed directly on the body. This use had been widely criticised by human rights bodies, including the UN Committee Against Torture.

Breach of children’s rights obligations

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly called for the prohibition of harmful devices, including Tasers, against children and the UN Committee Against

Torture has called for ‘clear presumptions against the use of tasers on vulnerable groups, such as children and young people’.

CRAE and the National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group (NTSAG), of which CRAE is a member, have been calling for a robust Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) to be carried out and published prior to any authorisation of Taser 10. Our calls have also been echoed by the Children’s Legal Centre Wales.

As the independent body providing the UK Government with advice on the medical implications of less lethal weapons, SACMILL has also recommended that a CRIA must be undertaken, pointing to the Government’s public commitment to give due consideration to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) when developing new policy or legislation.

To date, no CRIA has been made publicly available, and neither we nor SACMILL are aware that one has been undertaken. This is despite well-evidenced risks to children’s physical and psychological wellbeing from Taser use—and despite the UK's obligations under Article 3 of the UNCRC to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions that affect them. While we understand that an Equality Impact Assessment has been conducted, this is not a substitute for a CRIA and falls short of the UK’s legal obligations under the UNCRC.

Louise King, Co-Lead of Just for Kid Law, including the Children’s Rights Alliance for England said:

“Children are not mini adults. They require specific legal protections and safeguards because of their distinct vulnerabilities and evolving capacities. That the UK Government has authorised use of Taser 10 on children without a robust child rights impact assessment is deeply concerning. This is particularly worrying given this is also a key recommendation of SACMILL following its conclusion that Taser 10 poses particular serious risks to children. It is imperative that all policing equipment and weapons are subject to rigorous scrutiny on their impact on the rights of children in line with the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

Use of force statistics indicate that Tasers continue to be used on children with concerning frequency. There 2,900 uses of Taser on children in 2024—2,895 of these uses were on 11–17-year-olds and 5 were on children under 11 years. There were 66 discharges, all on 11–17-year-olds. While the number of uses has slightly decreased in the past year, the figures remain troubling, particularly given the lack of research into the long-term medical and psychological impacts of Taser exposure on children even when not fired.

Disproportionate and discriminatory use

Like other areas of policing, there is also significant racial disproportionality in Taser use on children. Over 70% of Taser deployments in London involve children from Black or other racialised groups. In the year ending March 2024, UK Home Office Statistics reported that of all Taser uses on boys, 26% were on Black boys and of all Taser uses on girls, 14% were on Black girls. Of all Taser uses on children 23% were on Black boys. Racial disproportionality in Taser use was also raised as an issue of concern by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination following its examination of the UK in 2024.

Safeguards must be in place

If the rollout of Taser 10 continues to go ahead, at the very least, urgent steps must be taken to mitigate the foreseeable harm to children.

First, the collection and publication of detailed, disaggregated data on the use and effects of Taser 10 against children must be mandated. This includes data by age, ethnicity, disability, mental health status, type and reason for use, and whether a child was harmed either physically or psychologically. Alongside improved data, scrutiny and accountability mechanisms but be significantly strengthened at both a local and national level.

Second, police training and guidance must be urgently reviewed and updated, in consultation with expert stakeholders, to reflect the specific physiological and psychological harms Taser 10 can pose to children. Training must explicitly address the heightened risks to children’s safety, health and development, and recognise that the deployment or even threat of Taser use can cause trauma, particularly for children with mental health conditions or special educational needs.

Finally, training and policy must embed a clear presumption against Taser use on children, in line with the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and guidance from the UN Committee Against Torture and other expert bodies.

SACMILL has also emphasised that children who come into contact with police are still entitled to the same safeguards and protection as any other child, and that their safety and welfare must be given due regard at all times.

We are calling for:

· The immediate suspension of the authorisation of Taser 10

· An independent Child Rights Impact Assessment to be conducted and published on Taser use on children

· A strong legal presumption against Taser use on under-18s;

· Enhanced police training that reflects the unique risks Tasers pose to children, and reinforces a trauma-informed, anti-racist, rights-based approach;

· The collection and publication of detailed data on the use of Taser 10 on children, including age, ethnicity, disability, mental health status, and reason for use and outcome.