About the writer: Blessing Isaackson BA (Honours) Keele University, CeMAP, B.L is a former Metropolitan Police officer.
Summary
In 2010, the British Consortium of retailers collaborated with the SIA, and Skills for Security to sponsor a report to encourage good practice and reduce the risks of physical intervention. This report highlights what I consider to be the important aspects of the 2010 report as they relate to security guards, door supervisors and their employers. I have also researched other materials to assist those in front-line and non-frontline security work to avoid potential pitfalls which could lead to avoidable litigation. I provide recommendations based on my experience of working in the industry.
Front-line security officers working in the retail sector operate in conditions akin to soldiers in the front of a war zone. Whilst this analogy stretches the reality, the fact is that security officers are prone to violence. They are spat on, bottled, stabbed, and verbally abused. The nature of the retail business makes it inevitable that retail security officers will at some stage encounter violence. The retail business is mainly a cash business and because cash and goods are attractive to thieves and often held on the retail premises, it is expected that security officers will often face violence in trying to prevent shoplifting or other crimes on the premises of the retail organisations.
The SIA and the providers of security services recognise the dangers that security officers are exposed to and is in recognition of this ever present danger that the SIA introduced the level 2 qualification requirement in physical intervention and made communication and conflict management part of the core-training competency. Since 2010, new security officers are required to undergo physical intervention training as part of the SIA licensing process.
The good practice guidance in the 2010 report is of particular relevance to security companies providing front-line security services to the retail sector though not limited to the security industry. The report highlights good practice in the use of physical intervention and acknowledges the inevitability of applying those skills in circumstances where their application could prevent harm to the security officer or prevent the escalation of a violent situation with the potential of injury to customers or the suspects themselves. However, where force can be avoided it advises that preventative measures aimed at diffusing violent confrontations take priority over the use of force.
The legal duty
It is the duty of providers of security services to ensure that those working for them not only have the requisite physical intervention skills but apply those skills professionally to avoid injury to themselves or to others. Not complying with their legal duties, unfortunately, can lead to the risk of civil or criminal litigation which we all know can be very costly and time consuming. The incorrect application of physical intervention skills can also lead to vicarious liability on the part of the retail organisation employing the services of external contractors and the external contractor does not need a clairvoyant to spell out the consequences of such actions on its corporate image and business. The providers of security services are obliged by law to ensure the safety of their employees and to put in place measures that will prevent injury to their staff.
The case of Jimmy Mubenga who died whilst being restrained on a flight out of Heathrow in 2010 is a good illustration of the responsibilities which lie on management. The case highlights the dangers of ‘lack of proper management of the use of force by private sector companies’.
The liability; Corporate Manslaughter
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 makes it a criminal offence under the Act for corporations to conduct their activities in ways which result in the death of an individual or group of individuals through the dereliction of their relevant duty of care.
The Act defines relevant duty of care of the employer as
(a) A duty owed to its employees or to other persons working for the organisation or performing services for it;
(b)A duty owed as occupier of premises;
(c)A duty owed in connection with –
(i) The supply by the organisation of goods or services (whether for consideration or not),
On January 20, 2009, a security guard working for London Borough of Waltham Forest was awarded £180,000 in compensation after he was attacked at work and suffered physical and mental injuries as a consequence. Prior to the attack, the security officer had warned his employers that the entrance to the security office was unsafe but his warnings were ignored. The solicitor who represented the security guard at the time said, “had the council carried out risk assessment of staff security before the assault, the assailant would not have been able to gain access to the premises.” She further advised, “Employers should do all they can to provide their staff with a safe working environment.”
Training
This obligation goes beyond listing what constitutes risk or having a health and safety policy. Also, merely titling a document “Risk Assessment” and ensuring your staff see, read and sign the contents may not be sufficient to discharge the onus on the employer to ensure the safety of its employees. An employer must not only carry out a risk assessment, it must implement control measures to prevent the risk from materialising or reducing the effects of the risks should they materialise. So what would constitute the implementation of control measures? While not an end in itself, implementing training which has as its core the provision of customer service and the delivering of physical intervention skills based on elements of the good practice guidance in the 2010 report is part of fulfilling the employer’s obligation.
Furthermore, an employer will be demonstrating the robustness of its risk control measures if it can, for instance, show that a front-line security officer working in a part of London considered to be a trouble spot is equipped with a security vest that would reduce or prevent the impact of a stabbing as would the provision of up-to-date training for trainers of physical intervention and periodic refresher training for security officers at a time and place to be determined by management.
The type of training provided by an employer is absolutely essential because the responsibility to get things right lies on the person or company that commissioned the training (the training provider) and if things go wrong an SIA accreditation will not provide protection to the training provider. If someone is injured during training or by a security officer trained by a training provider, the person who commissioned the training is liable. It is important for employers to maintain and refresh competency training. Door supervisors and security guards must refresh their physical and conflict management skills periodically.
While sending emails providing health and safety information to security employees is welcomed this cannot be a substitute to recalling security officers to a course based training. How this is achieved will be up to management, but training staff is a legal requirement for security officers to perform their security functions, so asking them to give up their day off to attend training without pay is a disincentive to attending training. As the 2010 report puts it, ‘training is an important control measure that needs to be part of an integrated violence management strategy’.
Situational risk assessment
Often security officers are faced with situations that their security training does not envisage or cater for. They have to make life and death decisions on the spot which go beyond the rigid rules or procedures set in a company’s health and safety manual. Security officers should be trained on how to deal with such situations and respond appropriately. This will reduce the incidence of violence. The 2010 report recommends that dynamic risk assessments be strengthened through a rigorous review of incidents or near misses so that security officers can learn from those incidents and assist management to formulate effective risk assessment strategies which ultimately will reduce injury to security officers.
Arrest and detention policy of the security contractor
The arrest and detention policy of retail organisations must be clarified as is the policy of the external contractor. For instance, does the retail organisation have a policy of arrest and have the external contractor’s staffs been trained on what the policy is? My experience as a security guard who has worked in a number of stores in and outside London shows clearly the lack of a consistent policy on arrest and detention of thieves or other criminals.
The policy appears to vary from store to store within a retail organisation. The security officer therefore relies on direction from their direct employer’s policy which ought to be based on the policy of the retail organisation and the law. Some stores ask the security guard not to arrest shoplifters or not to call the police. Other stores will call the police every time there is case of shoplifting. Where there is a conflict between the assignment instructions relating to arrest and detention given to security officers and the instructions given by the management of the retail store which should the security officer give precedence? These issues need clarity but my experience has shown that there is no clarity in this area.
An assignment instruction which require security officers to follow the following procedure:
1.Suspect must not be grabbed and force only used as a last resort.
2.Restraint must only be exercised if attacked by a suspect and you are unable to move away.
Require a certain level of conflict management and physical intervention skills which can be updated by periodic refresher training by competent trainers. As [trainer] Mark Dawes pointed out quite rightly physical intervention skills being taught are designed with failure in built and some of the methods are outdated making refresher courses by competent professionals essential.
Reporting
It is important for management to encourage security officers to report all incidents of violence or near misses, to them or to members of staff, where they work. This is crucial so that the training department can incorporate lessons learnt from those incidents and their impact or outcome into their training, design and implementation of control measures to avoid or reduce the reoccurrence of those incidents.
There has to be a system in place to deal specifically with the reporting of violent incidents. The arrangement whereby all incidents are reported in the daily occurrence book (DOB) is a one-size fits all system. The DOB comes within the classification of what the 2010 report refers to as “multi-purpose report forms”. The incidents of violence are so important that specific attention needs to be paid to reporting them. It is submitted that a VIOLENCE INCIDENT REPORT BOOK (VIRB) be kept by security companies. The 2010 report recommends that a dedicated online reporting system of conflict and violent incidents or a telephone / texting reporting of violent and conflict incidents be set up by security companies and retail organisations.
Staff consultation
The good practice guide encourages employers to consult their staff and learn from their individual experiences on how they successfully dealt with potentially violent situations and what they would do if the same situation were to arise in the future. The consultation should not be limited to preventing violence, but should also apply to post-incident support for security officers who have been victims of violence. Security officers injured in the course of their employment must receive continuous support during the period of recovery and this should continue for a reasonable time after they recover.
Verifiable records of these simple steps provide valuable defence to an employer being sued for negligence, because they show that the employer has robust risks assessment management in place and that whatever incident that occurred did so despite the best efforts of the employer. No court can blame an employer for trying its best! The role of the line manager in this regard is crucial. It is submitted that managers need to show empathy and respect and not behave as if the violence suffered is part of the job and the officer should get over the incident.
Recommendations
Risk assessment policy
1.A security company’s risk policy must be backed by an implementation policy. In simple terms do not just say what your risk assessment policy is ensure that you have evidence of the implementation of the policy.
Training
2.Train your security staff on physical intervention and conflict management skills. It is important for trainers of physical intervention and conflict management skills to have up-to-date training and refresh their knowledge periodically so that security officer can benefit from their up-to date knowledge through refresher courses for security officers carried out in-house or externally.
Reporting
3.The 2010 report recommends mobile texting of all violent incidents be sent to a dedicated mobile line. This recommendation should be taken seriously by employers. The information collected from the texts is reviewed periodically with the aim of using them as learning tools to avoid violent incidents or near misses.
4.Or maintain a Violence incident report Book.
Clarity and consistency
5. There must be consistency between an external security’s arrest and detention policy of the retail organisation, if there is one.
Conclusion
The issues raised in this report are not just important for legal reasons; they are vital for the corporate image of the security company in addition to strengthening their bids for work from retail organisations. This is because retail organisations are looking for security companies that provide strong security control measures, provide excellent training to their staff and have trainers with the relevant trainer qualifications. Also important to most retail organisations employing external contractors is whether in the event of a court case involving the retail organisation the external contractor has credible and experienced expert witnesses; and finally whether the security company conducts risk assessments of the physical skills of their security employees. A security company which consistently presents evidence of their compliance with these issues will never be short of business. So the recommendations in this guide are ultimately good for the corporate image of the security contractor and for the company’s bottom line.
