Section 5 of the Act states that any duty owed by virtue of this section in respect of a risk may, in an appropriate case, be discharged by "taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk". Section 6 goes on to state that no duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person (the question whether a risk was so accepted to be decided on the same principles as in other cases in which one person owes a duty of care to another). In practical terms, how far can an employer go in respect of erecting things like security fencing and other deterrents and keep within the requirements of the Act and assuming that things like razor wire and broken glass atop walls are a no no? The problem with signs of course, is that they may not be understood (even if pictographic).

I think Razor wire is ok to use if its high up and you literally have to climb on it to encounter it. And wasnt it an EU law that said the item being sold must be reproducable to a specification for it to be able to be used (CE marked etc) which is why razor wire is ok to be used/sold as it is uniform in design whereas broken glass is not so it cant be used.

I would start by looking at BRB vs Herrington which was one of the drivers for the legislation. The act talks about reasonable care and so that indicates an assesent to determine who's likely to be at risk from any proposed deterrants. However the advice of a good security expert will be invaluable as there are lots of techniques and products for keeping property safe without advertising to a would be criminal that there might be something worth stealing in the first place.

Thank you for the replies. I have been doing some research and believe that using proprietry anti intruder fencing would fit the bill so long as there is adequate signage. The other option is lots of prickly bushes around the perimeter!!