PFD report

David Robert Oldfield · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Mar 2014•West Yorkshire Eastern

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to restrict tasering by firearms officers to appropriate and justifiable circumstances
  2. Risk of serious injury or death from tasering in certain circumstances
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Safe Taser usage and use in appropriate, justifiable circumstances require no additional response; they are highlighted only for awareness.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to restrict tasering by firearms officers to appropriate and justifiable circumstances

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is no evidence that the act of tasering the Deceased caused or contributed to his death; however, there is evidence that tasering can, in certain circumstances, cause serious injury and/or death to a person; (2) The tasering of a person by firearms officers should only take place in appropriate and justifiable circumstances, and a failure to do so unnecessarily increases the risk of a loss of life; (3) On the basis of evidence adduced in the course of the Inquest it is unlikely that the events immediately preceding the tasering of the Deceased occurred in the manner stated by one or more of the attending firearms officers; (4) Therefore, it is of concern as to precisely what were the circumstances which preceded the act of tasering the Deceased, whether such was appropriate and justifiable in all the circumstances and, if not, whether similar circumstances could arise in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Risk of serious injury or death from tasering in certain circumstances

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is no evidence that the act of tasering the Deceased caused or contributed to his death; however, there is evidence that tasering can, in certain circumstances, cause serious injury and/or death to a person; (2) The tasering of a person by firearms officers should only take place in appropriate and justifiable circumstances, and a failure to do so unnecessarily increases the risk of a loss of life; (3) On the basis of evidence adduced in the course of the Inquest it is unlikely that the events immediately preceding the tasering of the Deceased occurred in the manner stated by one or more of the attending firearms officers; (4) Therefore, it is of concern as to precisely what were the circumstances which preceded the act of tasering the Deceased, whether such was appropriate and justifiable in all the circumstances and, if not, whether similar circumstances could arise in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Safe Taser usage and use in appropriate, justifiable circumstances require no additional response; they are highlighted only for awareness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The further comments we received from you in relation to the first two (the safe usage of Taser and the importance of its use in appropriate and justifiable circumstances) made it clear that these required no additional response from us, but were to highlight issues for our awareness. I will however return to these at the conclusion of the letter.”

Source location

2014-0117-Response-by-West-Yorkshire-Police
Page 1 · response
Published 14 March 2014

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Reviewed differences in officers’ accounts are considered normal witness variation, not evidence of more sinister conduct.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Reviewed differences in officers’ accounts are considered normal witness variation, not evidence of more sinister conduct.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have again spoken with the barrister acting on our behalf, as the solicitor with conduct of the case was not in court at all times, and read the notes made by the solicitor who was in attendance when the officers gave evidence. This has not identified concerns about the officers’ evidence. Whilst we accept that the accounts of these officers had differences (which were open to cross-examination) we believe these differences were in the nature of normal differences in witnesses’ accounts rather than anything more sinister. It may be pertinent that the officers who used the Taser were authorised firearms officers with significant training and experience in dealing with serious incidents such as the tragic events that morning, whereas the divisional officers were not so and indeed were in fear at the time, which can affect the perceptions of events.”

Source location

2014-0117-Response-by-West-Yorkshire-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 14 March 2014

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026