Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Dennis Bray
This is a most unusual thread and one which gives me some professional and ethical concerns.
I am health and safety manager within a police force which has recently decided to introduce the Taser stud gun to our authorised firearms officers as a less than lethal option in dealing with violent and/or armed offenders.
The device works by firing two barbed electrodes into the offender and the passing of upto 50Volts of electrcity between the barbs thus incapacitating the offender so officers can take control and restraint the offender.
Whilst i am all in favour and supportive of providing our officers with as many different options to deal with armed and dangerous offenders (especially in the current terrorist climate) i do believe i may well be in conflict not only with the general thrust and objectives of the H&S (Electricity at Work) Regs 1989 - the prevention of danger from electricity, and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Reg 1998. I cannot find any exemptions for this particular device or similar within the current ACOP's or guidance material. I am also astounded that no one appears to have picked up on the apparent legislative conflict even in the various trials and evaluations of the device before its introduction to the police service.
I have obviously raised my concerns locally with HSE and i have sought Counsels opinion as to the application of the H&S Electrcity at Work Regs to this device.
In a professional and ethical capacity should i be supportive of this device as on the one hand it would aid officers safety, yet on the other hand I am convinced the use of the device goes smack against the obejctives of the various Regulations I have previously mentioned.
Opinions as to the way forward would be welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
The issues you raise were discussed way back in an HSE Consultative Document CD139. This was a joint exercise involving the HSE and The Home Office. I would have hoped that by this time you would be able to rely on definitive guidance from the Home Office?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dennis Bray
Ron - Thanks for the information source do you have more details as I cannot locate HSE Consultative Document CD139 on HSE/HSC or Home Office Websites
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Dennis,
Anything used as a weapon or method of restraint is likely to fall foul of one regulation or more.
I think there has to be a sensible demarcation between 'work equipment' and 'weapon' as one cannot [should not] be the other.
Any society has to accept that some lawful force will be harmful, and sadly topical, fatal.
Effective law enforcement has just become tougher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Napier Cochrane
Dennis, I have emailed you the document CD139
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fred Pratley
Dennis,
I have not read the Electricity regs for a long time, but I believe its intent is to protect everyone from unintentional / accidental (potentially fatal) contact with electricity in the workplace.
Provided the Taser gun does not present an unreasonable hazard to the officer, I don't particularly see a problem, as the officer is the only person in a workplace as such.
As regards the ethics, while the effects of a taser gun are painfully visible, I would suggest they are less than being attacked by a police dog, or being landed on by several officers intent on going home relatively unscathed at the end of a shift, or being hit by a police truncheon.
And I would be fairly confident that all these aspects (including the legal ones) will have been looked at well before they were ever offered for Police use.
And at the end of the day, its better than having to shoot someone, knowing what the result of that will be.
Trust this helps, regards Fred
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dennis Bray
A big THANK YOU for all the responses especially Ron regarding CD139 which does provide definative guidance on application of PUWER to police equipment used for self defence and criminal compliance. Ron lots of beer and / or wine coming your way if and when we meet up at IOSH or similar safety events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dennis Bray
Issue Resolved:-
Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (as amended) requires employers to ensure that work equipment is so constructed as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or provided.
In deciding what is suitable employers must (Reg 5(4)) take account of any characteristics of the work equipment which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect any persons health and safety. Some equipment such as a baton or firearm (Taser is a Sect 5 Firearm), in its proper use by police officers for self defence or to deter criminal activity, is intended to cause a degree of harm to members of the public in certain cumstances.
(In line with the PPE Directive, the PPE Regulations 1992 do not apply to such equipment). Under Reg 5 police employers will have a duty to ensure that such equipment is designed to be effective (e.g. to stop an attacker) while taking account of the health and safety of the user, and in the case of firearms for example avoiding injury to bystanders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.