The Conflict Resolution Training Blog » Legislation

Death in Custody – Police to be held to account

PBrereton — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:00:46 +0000

Changes to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 have come into force recently mean that any death whilst in custody comes within the remit of this act. This means that not only the police but any authority, organisation or private firm who have responsibity for people held in custody can be held to account.

It’s an important issue as a recent Independent Police Complaints Commission report identified 333 deaths in police custody between 1998 and 2009. The specifics of these cases I’m not going to get into here but I do want to highlight that, once again, the importance of appropriate management of any situation of potential conflict is so very important. Nobody in these situations wants to get hurt and the police, or any other enforcing authority, must be ever more vigilant in ensuring that they use the correct physical restraint technniques and use appropriate self-defence techniques when needed.

At the risk of sounding like a real bore on the subject it’s all down to practice….practice…practice. The police have some excellent training available to them and I am sure that officers are skilled in restraint techniques and self-defence but unless it is something that is practiced then they are at risk of either getting themselves hurt or hurting others. Getting back into the class room to practice skills on a regular basis should be essential ‘maintence training’ and this applies to anyone who works in industry sectors that deal with the public and are at risk of being in conflict situations.

Possibly Related Posts:

Get out of that. Wrist releases….

Darren Good — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:20:22 +0000

A friend of mine was telling me about an article he’d read on a solicitor’s website about a care-worker who had won damages as a result of her claim for personal injury when a patient she was dealing with grabbed her by the wrist . The prosecutors position was that the employer was negligent for not making sufficient assessment of the risks to health and safety of their employee. A settlement to the tune of £220,00 compensation was agreed.

My friend brought this to my attention not because he’s a health and safety fanatic and knows of my work and personal interest in this area but to ask advice. He too had been grabbed by the wrist by a patient (he’s a care-worker) and while there was nothing serious to report about it, the patient being very frail he wondered what was the best way to release a grip such as this and ensure no harm to either himself or the patient.

So this week I thought I’d share with you my top tips for releasing yourself safely from a grip such as this.

Single Handed Parallel Grip.

If the agressor grabs you with the thumb on the inside of the wrist. Thumb – Inside- Turn In. Pull your hand back towards your own body to break contact with their palm. Push your elbow forwards towards the aggressor’s forearm. Step back to re-create the personal safety buffer zone.

I can’t go without a least a comment on the health and safety side of things that this example highlights. Employers put themselves, their employees and their clients/patients at risk if they do not ensure appropriate and regular physical intervention, personal safety skills and conflict management training . When deciding on a course please ensure it covers the legal side of things such as Health and Safety legislation and that your supplier has the appropriate accreditation such as edexcel the UKs largest awarding body for qualifications and The Institute of conflict management.

Possibly Related Posts:

Company Directors charged under Corporate Manslaughter Act

Darren Good — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:24:25 +0000

I’ve been reading a few blogs recently about Lion Steel Ltd.who are the second company to be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 since its implementation. This is a real wake up call for Company Directors to sit up and take notice of staff safety as they will be held to account.

The Greater Manchester Police have charged the storage manufacturing company with corporate manslaughter as a result of the death of an employee when he fell through a fragile plastic roof panel on an industrial estate. I have also read that the company is charged under section 2 and 33 of the Health and Safety Work Acts 1974 (HSWA) for failing to ensure the safety at work of its employees.

So it is that the three directors are each accused of manslaughter by gross negligence under section 37 of the HSWA for failing to ensure the safety at work of their employees.

Notwithstanding the terrible tragedy of the dealth of a man I am pleased to see that the Corporate Manslaughter Act is being used and has not just been a paper exercise. I believe employers should look upon this act as an opportunity to really look at the personal safety of their employees. Equally employees should use this Act as a way to ensure they are getting everything they are entitled to receive to enable them to their jobs safely and effectively. This will include the environment they work in, the equipment used and the quality and frequency of the training they receive.

This applies to all types of workplace, not just where there are obvious risks such as in manufacturing or building services but also where personal safety could be an issue due to staff members interactions with the general public. The NHS for example, often reports violence from patients towards their staff, and this not always from the mentally unstable. So here we have a caring profession….not somewhere you would automatically think of as an environment in need of personal safety for its staff…that in reality needs to and in many cases does, provide personal safety training for it’s staff.

The first hearing for Lion Steel Ltd. Will take place on 2^nd August.

Possibly Related Posts:

Doorstaff arrested on suspicion of murder

Darren Good — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:37:46 +0000

I want to share with you a tragic and ongoing situation that raises a number of interesting points for me around physical intervention strategies when dealing with conflict. The situation concerns four door security men from a nightspot in Southend who have recently been arrested on supicion of the murder of Reece Lamude. Mr Lamude, 37, was rushed to hospital following an altercation with the four door supervisors but hospital staff were uable to save him and he died early that morning. The post-mortum examination revealed that Mr Lamude had sustained neck injuries, possibly as a result of the incident.

This case is of interest to me because it raises…and not for the first time…the issue of the use of reasonable force when dealing with conflict situations. It is as ever a highly sensitive area and without acurate eye witness accounts or cctv footage it may be impossible to unpick what happened on that night. The four securaity guards in question are not the only ones who should be called to question here as their employers also have a part to play. Did their employers ensure that they had recieved all the required and appropriate training?

For those of you that don’t know all door supervisors should hold an SIA licence.That gives them a basic knowledge to permit them to be legally employed as a security guard. But it’s a bit like getting your drivers licence. You don’t get your licence and then start racing formula one cars and so it is the case with security guards of busy nightspots.

Employers of such venues should know that additonal physical intervention and conflict management training is more than likely necessary if their venue is likely to attract situations of violence and aggression. Failure on their part to supply this is a breach, by them, of the Health and Safety Act. So they too have a part to play.

Now none of this helps the tragedy of Reece Lamude’s situation and the courts will decide the outcome of that later in the year. But I would like to hope that cases like this raise the importance to employers to provide appropriate training to their staff and also for employees to demand appropriate training if they believe they are at risk. It will all go along way to making it safer for us all whether we are an employee or a member of the public like Reece.

Possibly Related Posts:

Why do police value a proven criminal’s statement the same as an innocent man?

Darren Good — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:12:56 +0000

I read an interesting story yesterday about a man, Mr Roberts from Nottingham, who protected his mother’s home by stabbing two burglars. The man had been charged with murder but he was acquitted this week.

Apparently, when he came to her house he found the patio door of the semi-detached house in Nottingham smashed to pieces. So he grabbed a kitchen knife from a drawer nearby to protect himself and then he was attacked by a 14-year-old burglar, who was brandishing a blade. In the struggle the youngster, who hasn’t been named for legal reasons, was stabbed twice in the leg and then was chased off the property by Roberts. The second burglar Mr Juett, was upstairs checking a bedroom. He then rushed down the stairs to confront Mr Roberts. In the fight Mr Roberts sadly stabbed the teenager in the shoulder which severed one his major arteries resulting in the burglar’s death.

The 14 year old accomplice told the police that Mr Roberts had chased him outside and then stabbed him outside of the property this was key to the investigation. The fact that he said it happened outside and then Mr Roberts went back into the house armed with a knife to get the other burglar is the reason Mr Roberts was acquitted.

Mr Roberts on the other hand, was clear with the police he said he stabbed both burglars in the house as self defence, it was the other burglar that had said he had chased him out.

The idea to prosecute Mr Roberts is interesting and it all stemmed from the stabbing outside in the criminals statement. This is because the prosecution said he could have called the police rather than going after them in vengeance or retaliation. By definition this isn’t self defence and it is clearly breaking the law.

However, the 14-year old changed his story and admitted when was re-interviewed by the police. He then told them he had been waiting for the other burglar outside the house which matched Mr Roberts statement. In other words Mr Roberts never actually went outside of the property. This in the eyes of the law shows he was simply protecting his home in self defence not retaliation. He was simply frightened and outgunned and did what most people would do pick something up to protect themselves.

The Independent’s article reported:

In a press conference immediately following the hearing, it emerged some police officers did not want the case to be brought against Roberts.

His mother Jacqueline McKenzie-Johnson, 47, said the law now needed to be clarified.

At present home-owners are not allowed to use "unreasonable force" but there have been calls for it to be strengthened so that only "grossly disproportionate force" would warrant prosecution.

She said: "There’s a need for clarification on ‘reasonable force’. I particularly believe that when you are faced with an intruder in your own home, the expectation that you behave reasonably doesn’t seem to fit.

"There are number of things that have had a bearing and I am sure that the General Election had something to do with it. Also, the overwhelming support we have had from the public may have influenced the decision as well as the fact there was no evidence."

In the eyes of the law you are allowed to protect your property, including the garden, but once you go off your property you should phone the police as this could then be seen as overly aggressive. This event apparently actually all happened inside the property. So it is seen as reasonable for Mr Roberts to have picked up a kitchen knife, when he had two armed burglars in his house. The intent was simply to defend himself and his mother’s home.

The law doesn’t need changing

The laws are there to protect us, personally I don’t feel the law actually does need clarifying. The general public just need to understand the law better. The mistake here was from the police and forensics in my opinion. If they had interviewed the younger burglar earlier they could have got the true story from him. I don’t know what the reason was why they didn’t sort this side of the investigation out immediately. Because once they got to the truth it all became clear and the charges were dropped.

Questions that need answering

My questions are these:

Why did it take the police to get so long to the truth?
Should the police take witness statements from known criminals with the same amount of validity as an innocent man protecting his mother’s home?
If all of these events did take place in the house why didn’t the forensic evidence either back up Mr Roberts’s story and negate the 14-year olds story?

As you can see there are more questions than answers here but the law is clear if you are scared for your life you can protect yourself in your own property. However, you simply can’t chase someone down the street with a machete and attack them and expect to get away with it as that would never be seen as reasonable.

[tweetmeme only_single="false"]

Possibly Related Posts: