Trainer Andy Walker replies to some of Peter Whitehead’s concerns about the newly accredited “APR” (Arrest and Plastic Restraint) training programme for front-line security operatives, as featured in August’s Professional Security Magazine. Peter in September’s issue expressed reservations about the legality and safety of the use of plastic restraints by security staff.
Are we protecting our staff properly?
Our security officers, store detectives, door supervisors, and cash in transit (CIT) staff are all facing increasing levels of violence in the workplace. Although, in theory at least, those security operatives are better trained than they were maybe five years ago, we still need to closely monitor whether the levels of training given to our people for licensing purposes are sufficient to keep them as safe as possible whilst they are working for us. The core competency training and qualifications for security officer SIA licensing, for example, carry a section on ‘arrest’. Delegates are taught the legalities of how to detain someone for certain crimes, so that the police can attend and deal. Provided that those detainees say something along the lines of, "It’s fair cop, gov", then that arrest should run nice and smoothly in accordance with what was taught in the classroom. In reality, however, arrest incidents can and do turn nasty for the security operative very quickly. When the terrorist or shoplifter or robber or burglar or graffiti-artist decides that he doesn’t fancy being arrested by the security operative, and offers violence or struggles to escape, then what can our people do to protect themselves and to help make that arrest as safely and efficiently as possible?
Handcuffs and restraints
There has been much debate over the years as to whether security operatives should use handcuffs or the new plastic restraints that are now available when effecting lawful arrests of violent people. There is nothing in the law that says that security operatives can use handcuffs for restraining people, but nothing that says they cannot. Provided that they are only used when effecting a lawful arrest, and only on violent detainees, when they are absolutely necessary, to prevent escape or injury, then it is perfectly legal to use them. The use of handcuffs is obviously a ‘use of force’, and therefore must be properly justified. Justification is achieved through establishing not only the legal right to use such equipment (when effecting a lawful arrest), but also through good objective grounds for so doing, to show that what was done was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. (I have a letter from ACPO confirming this to be the case.) The use of restraints by security personnel may well have to be justified to the police, the courts and possibly in civil actions, as Peter quite rightly points out.
The new "APR" programme, for example, teaches security staff how to use plastic restraints effectively, safely and within the strict rule of law.
Certified by Skills for Security, our new Government-supported sector skills body, this new eight-hour course has been designed for anyone in the private security industry who may have to effect an arrest, and interest in this innovative new programme has already been shown by door supervisors, store detectives, security officers, revenue protection officers, street-crime wardens, civil enforcement officers, bailiffs, close protection officers, event stewards and court and prison escort staff. If we are teaching security operatives how to carry out arrests, which part of the training for SIA licensing requires, then under the Health and Safety at Work Act all employers need to be assessing the risks to those workers, and then providing suitable training and equipment to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, their health and safety. If a store detective is seriously hurt trying to apprehend a thief, then questions could be asked as to whether there was any suitable equipment available to assist in that arrest, and whether such equipment was issued to that member of staff.
APR training
Training in how to effect an arrest and in the use of plastic restraints will:
Increase levels of safety for security operatives
Reduce risk of harm to detainees and the public
Reduce risks of criminal allegations and civil claims against operatives
Increase public confidence
Increase security effectiveness
During the programme delegates are assessed on both the knowledge required to act within the law by way of a multiple-choice examination paper, and are physically assessed on the safe application of the new plastic lockable restraints.
Following successful completion of the programme, delegates are issued with their own set of plastic restraints, key and belt holder. They also receive a year’s APR
Protection Policy, which covers them for up to £25,000 for pursuing a claim for damages in respect of their own injury or death whilst effecting a lawful arrest, and up to £50,000 for legal defence against civil or criminal prosecution.
This new programme is the first and only nationally accredited training in the use of restraints for private security personnel. There are a few training providers advertising ‘handcuffing’ courses, but those use the police-style metal handcuffs, lead to no formal accreditation other than their own company certificate, and offer no insurance for those attending the course. Course contents include-
The history of restraints
Types of modern restraints
Their use within the security industry
Rules/laws governing their use
Powers of arrest (new powers under SOCAP Act)
Conflict Resolution Model
The risks involved
Practical application
Knowledge and practical assessment
The programme uses a new style of plastic restraint used by police in the States. The key used to unlock the restraints is the same standard key that police officers over here use for their standard-issue handcuffs. This means that if a store detective or security officer has to use the "APR" restraints on a violent detainee, then when the police arrive they no longer have to go through the process of releasing the prisoner from the security operative’s restraints so that they can put their own on. They can now simply take the prisoner away, safe in the knowledge that they can release him from the restraints themselves, using their own keys, back at the police station.
These new restraints have been specifically designed not to cause injuries to detainees, and in fact several American police forces have now stopped using the more common metal handcuffs in favour of the plastic restraints, as they cause less injuries, meaning there is less chance of civil litigation.
Whilst I accept Peter’s comments that private security personnel don’t normally ‘transport’ prisoners like the police do, what about the private prison staff, or security officers fulfilling contracts with the courts to move prisoners around the country? And what about when a security officer or store detectives does carry out a lawful arrest and the prisoner shows physical resistance? What happens if those members of staff have to hold on to that prisoner for anything up to an hour, when the police finally find a free resource to send to deal with the arrest?
From my 16 years’ police experience, I can state that the majority of violent prisoners actually stop struggling once they realise they are properly restrained, reducing danger to themselves, the security staff and any members of the public nearby. Is Peter honestly saying that any detainee who offers or threatens violence towards a security operative should be shown out the nearest fire exit?
Firstly, that defeats to object of having security staff on the premises if they are unable to stop the crime or apprehend the offender, and secondly, I hope the shoplifters and other criminals out there don’t hear about this policy, as they will simply offer more violence towards security staff if they see this as a way of gaining their freedom from arrest! Security company employers have a duty to protect their staff, and to provide such training and equipment necessary for them to be able to carry out their duties effectively and safely.
Plastic restraints are an effective and safe piece of personal protective equipment (PPE). Several of the major security guarding companies have already shown an interest in this new training, and are looking at how the training can be provided to certain sections of their companies. We have been informed of numerous incidents where "APR"-trained staff have used their restraints to detain violent offenders. In none of those incidents have we received any complaints by the police or by the employer. In fact, the police officers have been impressed with the equipment and the way it has been used.
It is hoped that this new piece of equipment, supported by the accredited training and insurance, will become the norm within the UK private security industry, dramatically increasing levels of safety for those that work within it on the front line. I strongly feel that it is about time that the security industry took stock of the constant and ever-increasing dangers to its staff, and started to look more carefully about how it is protecting those people. The days of security officers going to work armed with just a torch, a notebook and some cheese and pickle sandwiches are sadly over.
About the writer
Andy Walker is a former police officer. He has also worked as a door supervisor and a security officer. His company, Feds Training, provides training for SIA licensing, and specialises in other accredited training programmes aimed and increasing safety for front-line security personnel.
