Man Shot With Taser Gun Whilst In Diabetic Coma Prepares To Take Legal Action

Police misconduct - unlawful use of excessive force


Irwin Mitchell is representing a 34-year-old man who was shot twice by police with a Taser gun after he went into a diabetic coma on a bus in Leeds.

Nicholas Gaubert was shot with the Tasers and arrested in July 2007 after police believed he could have been a suicide bomber. The incident occurred just one week before the fatal shooting of Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes by officers in London.

Mr Gaubert described how he was on his way to have a drink with friends when he suffered a hypoglycaemic fit which left him slumped on his seat clutching his rucksack.

An armed police team was called to the vehicle and when he failed to respond to their challenges he was shot with the Taser, he said.

Self-employed Mr Gaubert said that as one of his hands was not visible and he was still failing to respond to challenges he was shot with the electric stun gun again.

As this was happening, he said, another officer was pointing a real gun at his head.

He was finally restrained and came round in the police van and only then officers realised it was medical emergency, despite him wearing a neck tag to warn of his diabetic condition.

They took him to hospital but the police refused to take off his handcuffs while he was being treated, Mr Gaubert said.

Ifti Manzoor, of Irwin Mitchell, said there was no way Mr Gaubert posed a threat to the public even he was a bomber because he was alone on the top deck of the bus in a depot in the Headingley area of Leeds when the Tasers were discharged.

Mr Manzoor said: "I really appreciate that under the circumstances and at that time the police had an enormously difficult job. But Mr Gaubert was alone in a bus depot."

Ifti Manzoor concluded “We have now been instructed by Mr Gaubert to take legal action against the police for unlawful arrest as well as the unlawful use of excessive force. We await the conclusion of the IPCC disciplinary hearing before deciding on the appropriate action to take on behalf of Mr Gaubert.”