Posted By Les Welling Geof. Whilst I understand you, if it were a couple of soldiers in NI (or some other area of operation) they almost certainly would have been done for manslaughter. (Having served in the Army for 25 years, I speak from some experience)

Posted By Geoff Lloyd Merv, Police officers were not employees because they were attested and appointed to the ancient office of constable. This goes back to 13th century when you had the village constable . How this developed was HASAWA used the phrase employees whilst ManRegs 1992 spoke about " workers" and did not exclude emergency services so new legislation was brought in in April 1998 to make police employees for the perposes of H and W . I spent 4years on Home office committees drafting guidance and legislation. Hope this helps.

Posted By Les Welling Agreed, However, Could they have been under employees?

Posted By Jeffrey Watt Geoff I had it in my head that the HASAW didn't apply to the police until 97 or 98 but didn't feel confident enough to post that. Anyway if they(the police) are now employees for the purposes of HASAW since 98 does that not mean that HASAW applies to their organisation(regardless of the reasons it is being used in this particular case)? Are there any other limits to its scope amongst the Police Service that you are aware of? I am getting confused by the arguements and ask only because I think others may also be as confused. Kind regards Jeff

Posted By Robert K Lewis Surely then if the Police were brought into scope in 1998 then the legislators, ie Parliament had the intention that section 3 must apply. I agree that active operations were excluded but not the general safety systems which always were covered in some way. The issue is not about the frontline officers but the systems behind the information assessment and flow out to officers. Remember these people were out of contact once in the station. It was at Kings Cross that something was agreed to be done - it was not completed or even started to my best knowledge. Bob

Posted By Robert Kite Sirs, I write in connection with the proposed health and safety prosecution of the Metropolitan Police Service after the death of John Charles De Menezes from a tragic police shooting incident. Is there some muscle flexing on the part of Government and the Regulator to demonstrate to Chief Constables that timescales for health and safety involvement within police work are too long and that failures can and will be dealt with seriously? Something in this proposal to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work Act smacks of unfinished business and extreme public pressure. The previous prosecution of Sir John Stevens (Metropolitan Police Commissioner) and Lord Condon (Past Commissioner) for s2 offences under the Act when a Police Officer died after falling through a fragile roof while chasing a suspected offender, failed because the jury at the Old Bailey could not agree at the conclusion of a three week trial. Consider the following. • Police Services ban household bleach • Police Services remove ‘sticky’ plasters from first aid kits • Police Officers given written guidance on how to close a car boot lid Health and safety management should be about managing risk as well as avoiding risk and should avoid stating the obvious. It is true that a number of things need to be done to speed up compliance with health and safety requirements within police services and the emphasis for such management needs to be lifted. However a great deal more common sense and realism is necessary if we are to exclude the very mundane matters like those shown above. It is because of these that police officers are using an ‘arms length’ approach to the subject, seeing it as unreal and even insulting to their intelligence. It was as late as 1998 that UK police were formally introduced to health and safety influences having been exempted before then due to an interpretation of the term employee and how this equates to a police constable. I have been involved with introducing the subject into police work since that date (and before as an adviser to British Transport Police who did not share the same exemption) and experience shows that the timescale involved with police compliance is indeed, too long. A number of reasons exist for this. First it is very difficult to apply what is essentially industrial based legislation to the diverse nature of police work. Second, management of the subject within a police service is often placed in the hands of lower grade support service staff who have little or no actual influence on police activities. Third, it is difficult to persuade today’s police officers that this need to comply represents a change for the better. The current UK statutory position under the Police Health and Safety Act 1997 and subsequent Regulations, reflects the requirement contained under European Directive (EU 89/391) and brings a new employment situation for police work that will require much thought, sensible interpretation and probably case law if a serious impediment to police operations is not to be created. It is clear from the derogation contained within this Directive that the European Union foresaw a possible conflict between health and safety requirements and the operational function of a police officer when it included reference to the need for flexible management (only so far as is possible) within the operations field. S3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in its literal sense does indeed require an employer to ensure, so far as is reasonable and practicable, that persons not in his employment but who might be affected thereby, are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. Within most employment sectors this is desirable, achievable and measurable. However in a police context as in other public service organisations where risk is difficult to quantify (consider MRSA in the health services) the requirement can often be a ‘round peg in a square hole’. Why do we always have to ‘crack nuts with sledge hammer’s. This prosecution will solve little and, if successful, will only burden the tax payer with a hefty fine to pay. Much more could be achieved (and at much lower cost to the tax payer) by greater use of ‘Improvement Notices’ requiring ‘suitable and sufficient’ health and safety training of all police officers (not just the lower ranks) with the intention of improving the interpretation of law in this respect and the need to adapt the law as opposed to trying to apply the letter of the law. Training for police officers at the most senior level is crucial but seldom carried out. This may be because they do not see the subject as suitable to the operational function, viewing it instead as more applicable to offices and estate management. More training and a greater understanding of health and safety at work is the key here not prosecutions. Some of you already have experience in the area of police work and I would appreciate your views. Robert Kite Dip. H&S MA(Law) CMIOSH Dirctor of Safety Academy Ltd (www.safetyacademy.co.uk)

Posted By rjhills As a long time H&S professional, I was disgusted at the decision to make this case a "Health & Safety" offence. They said they could not gather enough evidene, what about those members of the public who all witnessed the killing? What of the couple who actually filmed it on their mobiles? What of the cctv footage which mysteriously disappeared. Could it be that, as an earlier report stated that the PM personally sanctioned things after seeing MI5 "evidence", that should a CPS case come to court, a trail may lead to No 10???. As far as H&S lagislation goes,it is there to protect EMPLOYEES!!! There is no evidence that the Brazilian shot repeatedly was an employee of the Met is there?? Since then the police who shot the "table leg terrorist have been found to have committed no wrong, and the policeman, (one of 350) who barged into the wrong persons house, (again on MI5 so called intelligence)shot the asian guy, "by accident". It seem that the police are above the law, if is a "political" killing. I am outraged therefore that the H&Safety law is being misused, where an individual was unlawfully killed(allegedly) by a member(sR of the police service. What of the HSE, being used as a convenient scapegoat when the CPS bottle out ??? What of justice,and for that matter morality??