A device that uses high-frequency sound to disperse teenage gangs is illegal under human rights law and is "degrading and discriminatory" to youngsters, a report this week claims.

An investigation by the Council of Europe found that the controversial "mosquito" device should be banned from Britain immediately because it violates legislation prohibiting torture. It found that "inflicting acoustic pain on young people and treating them as if they were unwanted birds or pests, is harmful [and] highly offensive."

The report also expressed concern that its use could constitute a "health hazard" and lacked adequate medical research.

The UK has more mosquitos in use than any other European state. The device has been installed at more than 3,500 sites across the country – compared to 5,000 across Europe as a whole – since it first went on sale in January 2006.

The mosquito works by emitting a pulse at 16-18.5 kilohertz that switches on and off four times a second for up to 20 minutes. It emits an irritating, high-pitched sound that can be heard only by children and people into their early 20s, and is used to prevent teenagers congregating outside shops, schools and railway stations.

Critics, however, say the device targets all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are misbehaving.

The council, which oversees the European Court of Human Rights, says the device contravenes international law prohibiting torture and "inhuman and degrading treatment".

"It is neither politically acceptable nor consistent with the safeguard of fundamental human rights. For these reasons, legislative measures should be taken throughout Europe against the marketing of such devices and their use in public places should be banned."

Calls for a ban by Europe's oldest political body are likely to be approved by the council's parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg this week.

The report's authors revealed that, although there had been co-operation with investigators from other countries where the mosquito is used, the UK government failed to respond to the council's questionnaire on the device.

The author's report, Polish senator Piotr Wach, said: "The lack of response from the UK, the country in which the 'mosquito' was developed, hindered the preparation of this report."

The mosquito is the brainchild of former British Aerospace engineer, Howard Stapleton, who came up with the device after his daughter was intimidated by a gang of boys hanging around outside shops.

Stapleton said he had received hundreds of positive reports from police, councils and businesses, but conceded a test case might be the only way of establishing the mosquito's legality.

Stapleton said: "There have been several independent investigations that conclude that when used properly there are no health concerns. The mosquito can be easily adapted so that it can be monitored and controlled centrally by either the police or a private company under agreed guidelines. This is something we have been lobbying for over three years with no success.

"As to the contravention of teenage rights, what about the rights of our homeowners and shopkeepers? Why ban the mosquito when it benefits the lives of so many beleaguered people?"

The UK has more mosquitos in use than any other European state. The device has been installed at more than 3,500 sites across the country – compared to 5,000 across Europe as a whole – since it first went on sale in January 2006.

They should replace it with vuvuzelas, at least they don't discriminate.


Get rid of the things, all they are doing is treating a symptom and not a cause.

some places place classical music and that seems to have the same effect in getting gid of the chavs

some places place classical music and that seems to have the same effect in getting gid of the chavs

Assembly in a public place is not a crime, and I am opposed to measures that discriminate against people whether their intentions are malicious or not.

Hmm, I think that depends upon the circumstances - if it's on privately owned property (such as the entrance to my local bowling alley) then I think Section 68 of the CJA is enforceable. Aggravated Trespass and all that. In which case I'd imagine, as the device is fitted to deter gatherings on a privately owned piece of property, they can more or less do what they like as long as it's within the existing legislation concerning noise pollution.