1. INTRODUCTION The duty of law enforcement officials to serve the community and to protect individuals against illegal acts does, exceptionally, require the use of force; yet the option to use such force when absolutely necessary brings a concomitant responsibility to use that force appropriately, and in proportion to the threat faced. Principles for the use of force in law enforcement are set out in the United Nations (UN) Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (UNCoC)i, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (UN Basic Principles)ii. In order to facilitate the ability of law enforcement officials to employ appropriate and proportionate force, if required, Principle 2 of the UN Basic Principles encourages States to “develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms.” It further specifically recommends that States should include “non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons.”.iii Important constraints upon these weapons are subsequent elaborated under Principle 3 which stipulates that: the development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimize the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.”iv The authors of this paper acknowledge the value of developing such weapons and equipment (which they contend should be considered as less lethal rather than non-lethal) so as to decrease the risk of serious injury or death that is inherent in police use of firearms. Some less lethal weapons and equipment can have a legitimate use in law enforcement if employed correctly and in line with international standards for law enforcement. When used responsibly by well-trained and fully accountable law enforcement officials, such weapons and equipment can help prevent and minimize harm, serious injuries and death to assailants, suspects and detainees, while also protecting prison officers, law enforcement officials and the wider public. Yet such equipment can have unintended dangerous and even lethal effects if not used in compliance with human rights standards, and is also open to abuse. Although the UNCoC and BPUFF provide important international standards for the use of force including less lethal weapons, both instruments are framed in broad aspirational terms and have not been elaborated further by more detailed and specific internationally accepted guidelines on the development and use of such weapons. Furthermore, neither instrument has been updated since its adoption with a view to keeping pace with changes in law enforcement practice or the development of new technologies. Indeed it is now nearly 30 years since the BPUFF were adopted, and the less lethal weapons environment has changed considerably since then, with a hugely expanded and an ever increasing range of less lethal weapons and equipment types being developed specifically for use by law enforcement officials. To explore these issues further, the following section of this paper examines a selection of less lethal weapons and equipment: that are weapons commonly used in custodial settings including prisons, detention centres and certain closed medical facilities, and/or employed in extra-custodial settings including the policing of public assemblies including demonstrations and protests. The paper will briefly examine the particular physical/medical effects of each weapon type and highlight relevant human rights concerns associated with its use. Consequently the paper will assess whether the less lethal weapon or equipment in question

Select target paragraph3