MILLWEC meeting minutes, 14 July 2026
Published 29 October 2026
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medical-implications-of-less-lethal-weapons-expert-committee-meeting-minutes/millwec-meeting-minutes-14-july-2026
Meeting: 14th July 2026
Hybrid meeting
Welcome, Introductions and Conflicts of Interest
1. Professor Charles Deakin, Chair of the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons Expert Committee (MILLWEC) welcomed Members to the 1st MILLWEC plenary meeting. Apologies were received from Dr Ian Maconochie, representatives from the Police Powers Unit (PPU) and representatives from Home Office Science, Innovation and Technology (SIT) Delivery. No conflicts of interest were declared. A full list of attendees can be found in Annex A.
2. The Chair outlined the meeting’s agenda and protocols to ensure smooth running of the meeting.
3. The Chair and Members conducted a brief round of introductions for the PPU.
Chair’s update
Advice on medical significance of Taser 10 barb change
4. The Chair stated that on 2 February, as part of a commission from the PPU, MILLWEC convened for the first time to discuss whether the change to the Taser 10 barb from a ‘fishhook’ to spear cut design should be considered “significant”.
5. Based on the provided evidence, MILLWEC did not consider that the barb design change was significant.[footnote 1]
6. At this meeting, MILLWEC also discussed the information required to appropriately medically assess Less Lethal Weapons (LLWs). A discussion on this was planned for later in the plenary meeting’s agenda.
MILLWEC Membership announcement and Register of Interests
7. The Chair updated that on 23 April, the MILLWEC Members were formally announced and their biographies published on the MILLWEC website.[footnote 2]
8. To support transparency, a Register of Interests[footnote 3] for MILLWEC Members was simultaneously published on the MILLWEC website.
National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Taser site visit
9. The Chair noted that on 20 April, MILLWEC Members attended a site visit to learn about functionality, usage and handling of Tasers, both in theory and practice.
10. The Chair reflected that this visit was very useful and expressed MILLWEC’s thanks to the NPCC for arranging this visit.
11. A further site visit was planned to facilitate learning about Attenuating Energy Projectiles (AEPs), potentially for later this year.
NPCC Less Lethal Weapons Working Group
12. The Chair provided an overview of the membership of the Less Lethal Weapons Working Group (LLW WG), which provided the MILLWEC Chair with the opportunity to gain a wider understanding of activities and concerns in the LLW environment and convey these to MILLWEC.
13. The Chair updated that:
a) At the meeting on 24 February, they introduced MILLWEC to the LLW WG.
b) At the meeting on 16 June, they updated on MILLWEC’s advice on the significance of the Taser 10 barb change.
Meeting with Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
14. The Chair met with the Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), Professor David Wood on 5 June. The purpose of this meeting was to explain each respective Committee’s work and to discuss where LLWs and drugs interact.
15. It was agreed that where drug-related risks and LLWs interact, the ACMD would be open to providing expertise.
Taser 10 deployment
16. The Chair outlined a recent incident where a Taser 10 probe was fired and embedded in a person’s underarm area. MILLWEC were asked to provide advice on this incident and convened on 29 May to discuss.
17. MILLWEC determined that this incident was unlikely to reoccur. MILLWEC advised that deployments of Taser 10 at close range should be avoided operationally where possible.
18. The Chair updated that they met with the NPCC on 2 July to discuss next steps in relation to this incident and outlined the actions taken forward from that meeting.
Data sharing agreement between MILLWEC and the Independent Office for Police Conduct
19. The Chair outlined that a data sharing agreement between MILLWEC and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was being prepared. This would enable the IOPC to share information with MILLWEC on where LLWs may have contributed to a death or serious injury while complying with current data protection legislation.
Action: Secretariat to liaise with the IOPC to finalise and publish the data sharing agreement.
Attendance at Home Office Science Advisory Council
20. The Chair updated that they had attended two Home Office Science Advisory Council (HOSAC) meetings on 3 February and 23 June. They reflected that the meetings had been an interesting insight into wider Home Office activity, and that there was nothing of direct relevance of MILLWEC to report.
21. The Chair advised that MILLWEC may interact more with HOSAC in the future.
Policy update
22. The Chair invited a representative from the PPU to provide the policy update.
23. PPU updated on the Home Office’s current LLW workstreams and relevant timelines as follows:
a) The Small Calibre Impact Launchers (SCILs) and Kinetic Impact Projectiles (KIPs) workstream was progressing and MILLWEC would provide input on the test plan later in this meeting.
b) The expired AEP rounds workstream was delayed. MILLWEC would be kept updated on next steps.
c) The approximate timeline for workstreams relating to conducted energy devices (CED) was outlined. MILLWEC would be informed regarding whether their expertise would be required for these projects.
d) Requirements for a workstream on specialist munitions were being confirmed. The PPU stated that proposals would be brought to MILLWEC to assess the medical implications associated with their continued use, once confirmed.
24. A MILLWEC Member asked if MILLWEC could use other forms of information such as armour types or military use of weapon systems when medically assessing LLWs, especially in regard to the angle of approach and access to vulnerable body areas. PPU responded that MILLWEC may assess LLWs using any evidence that was available. However, the Committee should be mindful when comparing police use of LLWs to military use of weapons systems. This was because police forces had different objectives in using particular weapons systems when compared to military use of the same weapons systems. Additional research could be commissioned through Home Office Science.
25. The Chair thanked the PPU for their policy update and PPU representatives left the meeting.
Small Calibre Impact Launchers and Kinetic Impact Projectiles test plan
26. The Chair welcomed PA Consulting representatives to the meeting and explained that they would be present about the test plan for the SCILs and KIPs workstream.
27. A PA Consulting representative outlined the aims for their agenda item as follows:
-
To provide an introduction to the aims of this project
-
To request that MILLWEC provide any relevant literature that will assist the project
-
To facilitate a discussion from MILLWEC around what should be included within the SCILs and KIPs test plan.
28. PA Consulting advised that they were engaging early with MILLWEC to de-risk the SCILs and KIPs test plan and ensure that MILLWEC would have the information they needed to assess the medical implications at the approval stage. They also outlined the need for the project, its relevant phases and some scenarios where SCILs and KIPs could be used.
29. PA Consulting requested MILLWEC’s assistance in a literature review to support phase 2 of the project, specifically asking for:
- Literature on injury and incapacitation methods/mechanisms
- Literature underpinning test methodologies/standards
- Evidence linking laboratory results to real-world outcomes.
Action: MILLWEC Members to contribute to the literature review on SCILs and KIPs via the Secretariat.
30. PA Consulting posed questions to MILLWEC around statistical confidence, what should be included in the test reports and gaps in the current evidence base for LLWs.
31. Discussion between MILLWEC Members and PA Consulting ensued on whether there was a standard set of factors for testing of LLWs and the following points were raised:
a) MILLWEC, as a relatively new committee, did not have a template of items for inclusion in LLW test reports. Clinical reports on injuries alongside laboratory results would be useful to assess the degree of injury and incapacitation.
b) There was a gap in the current evidence base around long-term medical implications related to exposure or handling of an LLW. Additionally, there was a need to define ‘incapacitation’ from a technical perspective.
c) In testing reports the depth of penetration should be recorded, alongside the resting point of a barb, to understand how far LLWs could penetrate. The penetration depth of an LLW could impact the injury profile. This was particularly relevant in relation to Tasers and LLWs with a sharp element.
d) The level of required statistical significance of findings was dependent on the factor that was being measured.
e) ‘Injury’ and ‘incapacitation’ were not mutually exclusive terms. It may become necessary to injure an assailant to incapacitate them, to prevent them from causing harm. The degree of incapacitation required may be dependent on the level of risk in the given situation.
32. The Home Office Frontline Police Advisor stated that testing on the Taser 10 involved ‘everyday clothing’. They acknowledged that in policing, police forces interact with a range of people in many different clothing types, so it was challenging to provide a baseline for testing.
33. MILLWEC discussed the best testing model for LLWs and the need to test against both the worst-case scenario and the most likely scenario. This was to ensure that the LLW was effective enough to both protect the public and reduce the risk of needing to use lethal force.
34. PA Consulting advised on the testing procedure for the Taser 10 barb. They also asked if MILLWEC was unique or if any other countries had similar committees. MILLWEC Members and the Home Office Frontline Police Advisor stated that they were unaware of a similar international committee. They advised that the PA Consulting representative could contact the National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group[footnote 4] to learn about this in more detail.
35. PA Consulting thanked MILLWEC for their input and agreed to remain in contact with the Secretariat to update and seek further input as required. The Chair thanked the PA Consulting representatives for their attendance.
Taser 10 Use Form and Change plan
36. The Chair invited the NPCC representative to provide an overview of the Taser 10 Use Form and Change plan, including the different forms required after Taser 10 use.
37. The NPCC representative presented on the following:
a) Taser 10 use process changes including upcoming operational process improvements. The aim of this was to reduce data burden on police officers caused by data duplication, using a monthly meeting and return of a form, with a designated single point of contact subject matter expert from each respective police force. The aim of this change was to increase operational capacity for officers. The current Use of Force Supervisor Report form[footnote 5] and Annex[footnote 6] would remain. Additional medical notes would be completed if a stay in custody was required.
b) The forms required for completion after Taser 10 use and additional forms for completion in custody suites. They also provided an overview of the impact of data burden on police officers’ operational capacity and the benefits of the planned operational change, which maintained the current level of governance over Taser.
c) The data gathered from police forces via their single point of contact would be analysed on a national level and enable local forces to act on their Taser 10 use data more quickly.
38. NPCC then thanked MILLWEC Members for their initial feedback on the Taser 10 Use Form and opened the floor to questions and further feedback.
39. Members were broadly supportive of efforts to reduce data collection burden but emphasised the importance of maintaining access to the information required to assess medical implications of Taser 10 use. Discussion focused on ensuring that any revised approach retained sufficient data quality and completeness, including relevant information from use of force reporting, custody reviews, body-worn video and Taser-generated data.
40. Members noted that some information currently captured through the Taser 10 Use Form may not be available elsewhere and requested assurance that important data fields would not be lost through any changes to reporting arrangements. NPCC confirmed that the proposed approach would maintain the necessary information and invited Members to identify any additional data fields that would be useful for future monitoring. Members suggested “injury/fear of injury to the officer” and “Did the subject go to hospital/mental health detention after the Taser deployment?”, if it was possible to collect this information.
41. Members discussed gaps in Taser injury reporting in Accident & Emergency departments because only serious impacts of Taser deployments were recorded. MILLWEC Members reflected that this data should be picked up via the Taser 10 Use Return Form.
42. Members also discussed the practical operation of the proposed reporting arrangements, including mechanisms for reviewing serious incidents and the potential use of data dashboards to support oversight. NPCC confirmed that data collected through the new reporting process would be shared with MILLWEC and that Members would have the opportunity to review the data and identify any gaps or required amendments.
43. Following discussion, Members agreed that the proposed monthly return could be implemented on a phased basis, subject to appropriate governance arrangements, effective force-level points of contact and satisfactory data quality. Members affirmed that within the phased approach, the existing T10 form should not be removed until there is assurance that the new system is working and gathering all the data necessary from the old Taser 10 reporting forms. It was agreed that MILLWEC would review the initial data returns and reporting arrangements at a future meeting to assess their effectiveness and identify any necessary refinements.
44. A Member asked if there would be a mechanism to flag if a serious incident with a Taser occurred, to enable review of these incidents by the national group of single point of contact representatives and/or MILLWEC Members. NPCC confirmed that a mechanism already existed to review serious Taser incidents disseminated via the NPCC through contact with Chief Taser Instructors within each police force.
45. A Member suggested that at the next plenary meeting MILLWEC Members should review the information gathered through the new Taser 10 monthly return and review the Use of Force form, to allow MILLWEC the opportunity to suggest amendments.
46. A Member stated that the Taser 10 Programme Board reviewed every Taser deployment at a high-level, so any problems could be identified and analysed for trends quickly. This information may be useful to MILLWEC.
Action: Dr Alex Gorton to confirm whether Taser Programme Board updates can be provided at MILLWEC meetings.
47. The Chair considered that reporting on Taser/LLW injuries and incidents at each plenary meeting would be useful. This was agreed as a standing item for each agenda. NPCC stated that there would be improved data mapping for future meetings because of the Taser 10 deployment return form.
Action: Less Lethal Weapon injuries and incidents update to be included as a standing item at each plenary.
Action: MILLWEC to provide further feedback on the Taser 10 Use Return Form to NPCC.
48. The Chair thanked NPCC for their presentation and input, and NPCC left the meeting.
49. In the interest of time, the Chair suggested that an introduction to the Post CED Assessment Form for Forensic Clinicians[footnote 7] was provided, and the Committee could feed back at the next meeting. This form was used when a CED exposure resulted in a custody stay.
Action: MILLWEC Members to review the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine post-Conducted Energy Device exposure custody form
Action: Dr Alex Gorton to provide detail which data fields were not included on the custody medical form for Taser deployment versus non-Taser deployments.
Annex A – List of attendees
Committee Members
Professor Charles Deakin (Chair)
Mr Duncan Bew
Mr Phil Cowburn
Professor Abi Dymond
Dr Alex Gorton
Dr Leisa Nichols-Drew CF
Secretariat
Emily Townley
Simon Duncan
Police Powers Unit
Sarah Wain
Fran Kingsmill
PA consulting
Tom Slater Sean Ravenhall
National Police Chiefs’ Council
Martin Lewis
Home Office Frontline Police Advisor
Nicholas Russell
Apologies
George Andronikos
Alister Cox
Sucheta Krishnaswamy
Dr Ian Maconochie
Sarah O’Rourke