States of Jersey Police: PAVA Spary: Approval for Use

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 3 June 2015:

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2015-0040
Decision Summary Title :	PAVA spray		Date of Decision Summary:	29 May 2015
Decision Summary Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title :	Report – Home Affairs Minister PAVA		Date of Written Report:	21 May 2015
Written Report Author:	Inspector States of Jersey Police		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Approval of the use of PAVA spray by the States of Jersey Police.
Decision(s): The Minister approved the use of PAVA spray by the States of Jersey Police.
Reason(s) for Decision: The States of Jersey Police currently use CS spray when dealing with violent people who cannot otherwise be restrained. The majority of UK Police forces now use PAVA spray instead of CS spray. PAVA is safer to use than CS spray in firearms operations where Taser is involved because, unlike CS spray, PAVA is not flammable. The current stock of CS spray, held by the States of Jersey Police, is due to expire at the end of July 2015.
Resource Implications: There are no additional cost or resource implications arising from this decision.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to notify the States of Jersey Police of the making of the decision.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

States of Jersey Police: PAVA Spary: Approval for Use

Report - Home Affairs Minister

PAVA (Pelargonic Acid Vanillylarnicle)

On the 30th November 2000, the Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, took a proposal to the Home Affairs Committee recommending the introduction of CS Incapacitant Spray for use by States of Jersey Police Officers.

In March 2001, the Home Affairs Committee approved the use of CS spray for a trial period and following a period of evaluation, the remainder of the Force were trained and issued with CS Spray.

CS is primarily designed for dealing with violent people who cannot be otherwise restrained.

This was in response to officers being subjected to acts of violence by individuals who may or may not be armed with weapons.

CS Spray was also introduced to give officers a further tactical option when:-

• An officer finds it necessary to defend themselves or others; or

• To effect an arrest; or

• To prevent the commission of an offence where other levels of force have been ineffective; or

• The officer considers other levels of force would be inappropriate in the circumstances.

Advances have been made since the introduction of chemical irritant sprays in the UK. As a result of operational experience and the introduction of Taser, the majority

of UK forces are now using PAVA.

Like CS, PAVA spray is an incapacitant spray dispensed from a hand-held canister in a liquid stream.

The overarching theme when comparing CS and PAVA sprays is cross contamination of CS sprays compared with the accuracy required to use PAVA sprays. The other significant difference between the sprays is their flammability, which may be a consideration when assessing the risks when deploying the sprays with Taser; CS is flammable, PAVA is non‐flammable.

CS requires less accuracy when sprayed to produce an effect. This could be considered a benefit in some cases as it has an effect even if the subject turns away or puts their hand to their face.

Additionally, it is considered better in crowds or large groups.

However, there is also a disadvantage of cross contamination as officers or bystanders may be inadvertently affected by the spray.

In order for PAVA to be effective it must enter the eyes, therefore there is a greater need for accuracy when deploying this spray. However, the spray is only considered to affect those that have been hit directly and therefore does not affect bystanders or police.

PAVA is approved for police use in the United Kingdom.

Both PAVA and CS are prohibited under section Article 33 (1)(b) Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 as a ‘weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing or for inflicting electric shock’.

As PAVA falls under the definition of Article 33 (1) b, there is no requirement to make changes to legislation in order for the States of Jersey Police to equip its officer with PAVA.

Conclusion

The Home Affairs Minister is asked to consider the use of PAVA in place of CS Spray when the current stock of CS expires at the end of July 2015.

Inspector Sarah Henderson.

21 May 2015

Noted and supported – there are no additional cost implications to making this change in equipment from CS to PAVA and the transfer is in line with the move nationally. PAVA has also been shown to be safer than the use of CS in firearms operations where Taser is involved because PAVA is not flammable. There are no additional training implications and the current holster equipment remains suitable for use with PAVA.

Chief Inspector James Wileman

21/05/15