FOI 536/25 Officer Equipment
Date: 29/07/25
Enquiry Reference: 536-25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Please accept my apologies for the late response. Below is your request and our response.
For the provision of your constabulary/force/service’s total number of authorisations for the deployment of incapacitant sprays for the years of 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 (as recently as possible)
For the provision of the type of incapacitant sprays that received authorisation for deployment in each of these years.
For the provision of your constabulary/force/service’s total number of authorisations for the deployment of tasers for the years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 (as recently as possible)
For the provision of the type of taser that received authorisation for deployment in these years (e.g., X26, X2, 7)
For the provision of your constabulary/force/service’s total number of authorisations for the deployment of baton rounds for the years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 (as recently as possible)
For a breakdown of the types of baton rounds that received authorisation for deployment in these years.
- a) We do not record authorisations for the deployment of incapacitant sprays, tasers and baton rounds (AEP’s) we only record when the spray was used. See below figures with caveats.
|
Data Supplied |
2021 |
2022 (March - Dec) |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 (Jan - June) |
|
PAVA Spray (drawn and used) |
X |
215 |
257 |
270 |
126 |
|
C.E.D.(drawn and used) |
X |
367 |
517 |
505 |
259 |
|
A.E.P.(drawn and used) |
X |
38 |
50 |
82 |
57 |
PAVA Spray - throughout period requested, we have used CAPTOR 2 (PAVA), we have been in transition to CAPTOR 360 in the last couple of years, there is no difference in the ingredients it is purely because the spray has the ability to be sprayed 360 degrees, CAPTOR 2 had to be sprayed upright or the can would de-pressurise.
C.E.D. - TASER X2 for that full period
A.E.P. - Our 'baton round' is actually referred to as an AEP, Attenuated Energy Projectile (AEP), fired out of a weapon known as a launcher
Caveats:
- ‘Taser’ is just a trade name, but we refer it as C.E.D., although we do use TASER devices.
- ‘Baton Rounds’ is an inaccurate description, and we use A.E.P. (attenuating energy projectiles) that are fired out of a weapon called a launcher.
- We do not hold data on ‘authorisations for deployment’. The data attached relates to Use of Force Data. This is NOT the number of occurrences as each officer can use one or more type of force (requested) and one incident can involve several officers using different types of force. Firearms officers carry and are trained to use less-lethal options first.
- The data is for when the equipment was drawn as well as used, we don’t differentiate between the data.
- We only hold data from March 2022 as this is when the Use of Force form was changed.
For the provision of your constabulary/force/service’s total number of authorisations for deployments of armed response units for the years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 (as recently as possible)
2021 – 469
2022 – 367
2023 – 309
2024 - 373
For a breakdown of the types of firearms authorised for deployment in these years.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can confirm it holds the information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1) (a) & (b) Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudiced based qualified exemption and there is a requirement for us to evidence harm in confirming or denying whether information is held and also to consider the public interest.
Factors favouring Disclosure:
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in the transparency of policing to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, to release to the world tactical information could compromise the effectiveness of law enforcement. It would also help criminals or those with a criminal intent to build up a picture of where police resources are deployed.
Balancing Test:
Public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Releasing this information would undoubtedly compromise law enforcement. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and if an FOI disclosure revealed information to the world that would undermine the security of the national infrastructure, offenders could use this to their advantage which would compromise public safety and more worryingly encourage offenders to carry out further crimes.
In accordance with Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this notification acts as a Refusal Notice to this section of your request.
Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we hold. Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The Freedom of Information Code of Practice (see below link) states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-code-of-practice
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Decision Maker