Posted By Geoff Burt
I can't decide if this is a news bulletin, an advert or a genuine discussion topic.

Are you looking for a response Mark?

If so, on what point?

Posted By Jim O'Dwyer
The way things are going out there - more people are going to need to be physically restrained next year than ever before!

So, whatever your purpose was, thanks for helping to raise awareness of the dangers and the legal expectations Mark!

Best wishes,

Jim O'Dwyer

Posted By Mark Dawes
Dear John

You are obviously uspet by my recent posting so I thought I would attempt to clarify your possible lack of understanding of the issues I have raised.

I accept that police officers have a difficult and at times dangerous job to do. I have also been in the font-line on many occassions where have personally been attacked with knives and I have been shot at, therefore I do appreciate the risks and difficulties they face.

Regarding the issue of the recent fatal shooting I do not feel it is appropriate for me to comment on it as I am raising the issue fo physical restraint not firearms incidents.

The comment you have made on risk assesments including the risks to officers who are expected to use physical restraint is absolutely correct as a risk assessment should be designed to encapsulate the risks posed to all parties.

On that basis training for staff should be comprehensive enough to alow staff to use their subjective judgement, skill and knowledge at their discretion as a form of 'dynamic risk assesssment' if you like to reduce the risk of injury to all concerned - including themselves.

I am surprised however, that someone who is, I presume, a health and safety professional doesn't undertsand the objective concept of what I have raisied and has taken the issue so personally. The actual risks associated with restraint are well documented, including empirical police research, which shows the specific risks associted with restraint and what safeguards should be used. I suggest you research the findings as they show a number of significant consistent factors that increase the risk of death. Most others have moved forward since Robert Peel!

Mark Dawes

Posted By Dave Wilson
Mark,

Don't understand what the issue is here, I would have thought that the safety of the restrainer is more important that the restrainee on the grounds of 'reasonable force'. Do these restrainers do this lightly with no regard? or is there a training issue.

What accreditation do you need to become a trainer in this technique and what 'institute' accredts?

Who has the legal right to restrain anybody?

just asking as I don't know?

Posted By Mark Dawes
Hi Dave

In answer to your question Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which came into effect in the UK on the 2nd October 2000) promotes a positive obligation on public authorities and public officials to promote a "positive obligation to preserve life".

Therefore, with regard to the safety of the restraier or restrainee both are equally protected by law as the Act requires public authorities and public officials to take positive steps to protect and preserve life and prevents the same from taking life expect in line with the exhaustive exceptions in Article 2(2)(a)(b)(c).

Under case law (McCann v United Kingdom) the Judge summed up by stating that "in making it's decision the Court will take into consideration not only the actions of the organs of the state who actually administer the force but also the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination. This idea of planning and control is important. The Court held that the State must give appropriate training, instructions and briefing to its agents who are faced with a situation where the use of lethal force is possible. The State must also exercise strict control over any operations taht may involve the use of lethal force."

Therefore there is a training issue here whch brings us back to the involvement of health and safety when expecting employed staff to restrain in whatever capacity or prfessional role. Any training, if it is to comply with the law must involve "positive steps" to redcue the risk of death.

With regad to "Reasonable Force" Human Rights legislation now applies a stricter and more compelling test when considerng use of force options. In essnce it places an objective responsibility on employers in the first instance to ensure that in training staff the risk is reduced to it's lowest posible factor in line with promoting a positive obligation to preserve life as required by Human Rights legislation.

Employers can no longer expect staff to use physical force, offer limited training that may in some cases be either inappropriate or ineffective, and then place staff in the frame when things go wrong. It comes down to the basics of risk assessment and a knowledge of all aspects of the field.

Due to the well documented risk of using phsycial restraint risk assessments should therefore, by default, be more in-depth to reduce those risks where they are apparent.

I have forwarded you a copy of a report by e-mail which I am sure will answer many of your questions.

If you need anything else just let me know.

Mark Dawes

Posted By Mark Dawes
Other payouts that have been ade are:

1. $5.7 Million (AUS) [equivalent to £2.1 milliion awarded against a National Coach as a result of an unreversable back injury sustained during training. Although this happened in Australia it sets a precedent here and is one of the reasons that some UK insurers will not insure restraint instructors!

2. £324,000 to the family of Richard O'Brien who died as a result of being arrested and restrained for being drunk and disorderly. At the inquest Sir Montague Levine said that the case "reflected an appalling lack of instruction" among officers in restraint techniques.

3. £190,000 to a teacher assaulted at work by a teenage pupil suffering from severe psychiatric problems. The Judge ruled that the London Borough of newham was negligent for not revealing the need for fuller restraint of the pupil.

Also, allegedly, there has been an out of court settlement of £250,000 for an injury received during restraint training in the UK. Anyone know anything about it?

Mark Dawes

Posted By Colan Ash
This posting raises an important issue for safety professional responsible for commissioning training for staff. Having been responsible for commissioning training for staff who had to physically restrain or otherwise deal with aggressive clients, the problem of identifying competent trainers and adequate training programmes became a mine field.
Many trainers claimed to be affiliated to national organisations or offered accredited training but when I researched these claims it became apparent they were commercial organisations offering self designed and self accredited training. Often quoted was ‘home office approved’ training, which as far as I can ascertain does not exist and seems to be training emanating from prisons. Several trainers claimed competency based on careers in the police, armed forces or a martial arts background and offered ‘off the shelf’ courses without reference to local risk assessments, incidents or staff surveys. The NTO national standards for violence do not cover the techniques or content of staff training and there do not appear to be any national standards in this field.
After months of research, I have now commissioned training which has been based on research, risk assessments, the law (not just H&S) and tailored to our needs and I feel it would stand the test in court, but wonder if this is an area IOSH could assist with guidance or minimum standards for such training?