Physical Intervention
The Ongoing Debate
The question probably really is “What is the future for physical Intervention in the Security Industry?”
To answer that we first need to look at the current climate and what changes are happening.
Currently the Government is considering a ban on the use of face-down restraint in English mental health hospitals following figures which show the controversial technique being used hundreds of times a year in some trusts and been responsible for over 13 deaths last year alone - a level described by a health minister as "shocking" and apparently "excessive"
You have also heard today from the SIA this morning that there have also been a number of deaths in the door supervision world as well, related to restraint and use of force situations.
Also an article recently appeared in PoliceOracle.com entitled: "Mental Health: 'Officers should not restrain patients'", states that police officers should not be called to mental healthcare settings to assist in the restraint of violent patients because they do not have the skills and knowledge to deal with complex mental health issues.
Article 2 (1) – The Right to Life(Absolute Right - A Positive Obligation to Preserve Life)
“1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
The Human Rights Act also has a role to play in Physical Intervention, especially Article 2(1) which requires all public authorities to take positive steps to promote and preserve the right to life of all UK Citizens. This means removing and techniques or practices that could increase the risk of death and finding safer ways of controlling individuals who may have to be restrained. This positive obligation also extends to the protection of staff!
1. It failed to protect a member of staff working in conditions known to be dangerous;
2. The company ignored well-recognised industry guidance in this area;
3. There was a gross breach of the duty of care owed to the member of staff who died, and
4. The way in which its activities were managed or organised by its senior management formed a substantial element of the breach.
The Corporate Manslaughter Act
In addition, the Corporate Manslaughter Act is now being more widely used for prosecutions and the above points illustrate what the main failings were in the majority of prosecutions so far. This applies directly to many organisations whose staff are expected to control and restrain potentially aggressive and violent individuals.
“…..private firms managing people held in custody can be prosecuted for Corporate Manslaughter.”
“…..they could be prosecuted if they failed to ensure the safety of someone in their care.”
“…..examples could include……when someone has been restrained using an unauthorised or badly taught body hold.”
The Corporate Manslaughter Act has also now been amended to include the following:
Corporate Manslaughter Cases up 40% in One Year
In One Corporate Manslaughter Case Simon Joyston-Bechal from Pinsent Masons' Solicitors said:
"High-risk industries and companies cannot be reassured by the current lack of convictions for corporate manslaughter.
These convictions so far are just the tip of an iceberg."
Corporate Manslaughter Cases up 40% in One Year
He then went on to say…..
"Cutting corners on safety in order to save money is probably the most serious aggravating feature of an offence.
All businesses need to have robust health and safety procedures in place."
Yet in spite of all of the deaths and injuries and changes in legislation that make organisations and training providers more accountable physical intervention systems are being used that are not fit for purpose, techniques are being taught that should not be used and door supervisors are still being expected to restrain on their own!
We can no longer hide away from the facts.
Otherwise this could easily end up being the future for many managers and training providers.
It’s really is now.……….
The Question was then asked as to whether moves were being made to standardise the physical skills
so that everyone teaches the same techniques
Although the intention is good the application could be difficult and there could
be many conflicts of interest from many stakeholder groups.
It would probably be better to move towards a more principle-applied approach
to training delivery as opposed to specifying specific techniques.
The one thing to bear in mind is that we are all now much more accountable for what advice and guidance we supply under Human Rights Legislation as you will see from the next slide……...
Article 13 of ECHR
The police are now quoting Article 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998 during their training, which states:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
In lay terms this means that if anyone has been violated by someone working or acting in an official capacity they are entitled to a remedy before a national body - and possibly even an enforceable right to compensation (Article 5(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998).
The Coroners Inquest has also found that Mr. Mubenga was ‘Unlawfully Killed’ by G4S staff who were using ‘unapproved techniques’ to restrain Mr. Mubenga which resulted in his death. The CPS are now re-considering their initial decision not to prosecute.
Lady Nuala O'Loan, in the also however, expressed her critisism about "inadequate management of the use of force by the private sector companies……..”
She felt that there was an urgent need to review the systems of restraint and training. She went on to comment that "the training was textbook training but.....it was one size fits all: it made no difference whether they were dealing with a five foot girl or a 20 stone man".
Lady Nuala O’Loan, commenting on the issues surrounding the Jimmy Mubenga incident gave the following statement ……..
The day of the “one-size fits all” training package is coming to an end. That means that it would be unwise to recommend a standard set of techniques.
• £180,000 Compensation for Security Guard Attacked at Work
• £28,000 Compensation for Prison Officer Attacked by Inmate.
• £200,000 Compensation for Carer Hurt During a Restraint.
• £400,000 for Teacher after pupil knocked arm into filing
cabinet.
• Golfer sues for £750,000 damages over ‘eye explosion’
Also, what if the ‘one-size fits all’ standard set of techniques doesn’t work for everyone or is not fit for purpose?
Well the answer would be that people injured as a result could sue the organisation who provided or commissioned the training as we can see from the above cases.
For example, restraint is a manual handling activity, so the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Manual Handling Regulations and even Lone Worker Guidance must apply.
Automation or mechanisation
43. If, so far as is reasonably practicable, handling of the load cannot be avoided, then can the operation/s be either:
(a) automated; or
(b) mechanised?
Also, to eliminate or reduce the need for prolonged manual restraint other options such as handcuffs, soft-cuffs and Emergency Response Belts (or other approved items) should be used in line with the Manual Handling Guidance..
The Decision Making Model
The Decision Making Model is a new use of force model that has been adopted by the police and now the court’s are looking at it too as it provides a structured and objective way of training, managing and reviewing use of force incidents .
Statement ofMission
and Values
GatherInformation & Intelligence
Assess threat and Risk and
develop a working strategy
Consider Powers and Policy
Identify options and contingencies
Take action and review what happened
There is a whole module on this in our Online Reasonable Force Course whch you can view at: http://www.nfps.info/reasonable-force-course
The facts are things are moving on and times are changing
The old way of delivering autocratic one-size fits all training by technical rote based ‘monkey see – monkey do’ is now limited.
So What is the Purpose of Training?
“To provide people with the correct underpinning knowledge, information, instruction and resources to allow them to deal professionally and competently with what they are likely to expect, and also to be able to use all of those resources with professional discretion when required to make decisions in situations of high emotional arousal.”
This requires more than just teaching people a set of ‘pre-prescribed’ techniques. This means teaching people about all of the underpinning principles: legal, health and safety, psychology and human behaviour, etc., aimed at making them competent.
“As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
By embracing a ‘principle-based approach and by listening and acting on feedback you can also embrace opportunities
outside of the Security Sector
• The biggest growth area is in Health & Social Care.
• This is also true for PI training.
• Largest user of Physical Intervention is the Health and Care Sector.
As Sallyann Baldry from IQ stated at the beginning of the meeting that…...
• Must be Legally Accurate.
• Be based on suitable and sufficient assessment of risk.
• Comply with other Health and Safety legislation – including the Manual Handling Regulations, HSG 65 and HSG 48, etc.
• Be Principle based as opposed to Technique driven.
• Be taught consistent with new learning models.
• Develop organically by using feedback pro-actively from the people being trained and other sources.
• Be properly monitored as part of every businesses QMS.
The Future for PI Training?
Thank you for viewing this presentation and if you would like to know more about what we can do for you please visit our web-site at: www.nfps.info or e-mail at [email protected]
