Yes, the Police (Health and
Safety) Act 1997 defines police officers, special constables and cadets as
being ‘employees' and ‘at work' while on duty. The Police (Health and
Safety) Regulations 1999 applies the provisions of all existing health and
safety regulations to police officers but with some aspects amended to allow
the police to use items of work equipment with appropriate force against others
during their operational activities.
Civilian members of police
staff are protected by health and safety law in the same way as employees of
other organisations.
Who is the employer in the police
service ?
For health and safety law
purposes, the employer of police officers is the ‘office of chief constable/police
commissioner' as a corporation sole. It is the duty of this ‘office' to ensure,
so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their
officers as they are responsible for the operational decisions and the
day-to-day running of their force.
Other police staff, although
often managed by the chief constable/police commissioner, are employed by
police authorities/joint police boards who have the legal duty to ensure their
employees' health, safety and welfare at work.
This means that the individual
chief constable/police commissioner and individual members of police
authorities/joint police boards will not be held personally liable for any
breaches of health and safety legislation by their force, except where it is
proved that the offence has been committed with their consent or connivance, or
has been attributable to their neglect.
All civilian staff working in
the Police Service are employed by the Police Authorities.
How should a police service go
about setting the minimum/safe staffing levels for uniform officers ?
The determination of the
numbers of police officers required for any police activity is an operational
decision for each individual force and not one for HSE. However the force has a
legal requirement to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for each
type of activity, which should include consideration of the number of officers
necessary to ensure the health and safety of those involved, taking into
account the nature of the activity, time and location.
If there is a significant
change in circumstances then the assessment must be reviewed and suitable
arrangements put in place to manage the risk which may include altering the
minimum number of officers required.
Airwave radio
system – limited/loss of coverage
Every police
force should ensure that it has mapped out where the Airwave radio system has
limited or no coverage and that where these ‘holes' occur arrangements are put
in place to mitigate the risks. Organised operations or known patrols in
areas with limited or no coverage must also plan to reduce any possible risks.
There is
currently work on-going where airwaves are installing some more equipment which
should relieve problems that we seem to encounter, each time we have a large
number of radios used in the same area. The only other force to
have had this work and equipment carried out is the Metrpolitan police force.
Heroic Acts by Police Officers
and Firefighters
The CPS recognises that, in performing a heroic act, a police officer or
fire-fighter may breach section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act
etc. 1974 (HSWA), in that they failed to take reasonable care of
their own safety.
In those circumstances, and where the safety of others is not put at
risk, public interest would not be served by taking forward a
prosecution under section 7 of the 1974 Act.
Police officers and fire-fighters are employees and are subject to the
duty under section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA).
This provides that it is "the duty of every employee to take reasonable
care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons, who may be
affected by his acts or omissions at work."
In the course of their duty, police officers and fire-fighters may be
presented with situations in which they have to consider acting in a way, which
puts their safety at real risk. Examples of this could be to save or prevent
the potential loss of life or to perform their duty to prevent crime or arrest
a suspected offender.
The extent of that risk will vary but in some situations the individual
may decide to act in a way which puts their safety at significant risk in order
to perform their duty. Although it is very unlikely that an officer
would be investigated in such circumstances, prosecutors may be
asked by investigators to consider whether such a "heroic act" such
as this should be subject to prosecution under section 7 HSWA if a case is
referred to them by investigators.
Each case must be considered on its own merits and prosecutors will
apply the Full Code Test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and they should also apply the
following considerations.
Unlike in other health and safety offences, there is no issue of
"reasonable practicability", and no reverse burden of proof under
section 40 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) in respect of section
7 HSWA offences.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the acts of the
individual were such they amount to the person not taking "reasonable
care" for the health and safety of himself or others. In the exceptional
circumstances under consideration, a police officer or fire-fighter may act in
a way that shows a considerable disregard for their own safety.
However, this will not in itself mean that the individual has not taken
reasonable care for their safety as what is reasonable will depend on all the
circumstances including why the individual acted in the way that they did.
Decisions to act in such a way are likely to be taken in fast moving and
dynamic situations. In circumstances in which a police officer or fire-fighter
acts in such a heroic way, it is very unlikely that a jury would find that such
actions were not "reasonable".
`
Where the evidential stage of the Code Test has been met, prosecutors
must go on to consider whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. In
rare cases where an heroic act has been performed, it is very difficult to
envisage circumstances in which the public interest would be served by the
prosecution of a police officer or a fire-fighter who puts their own safety only at risk and breaches section
7 of the HSAW Act, while carrying out a heroic act.
Something
a little light hearted
Trust a fellow officer
A defence lawyer was cross-examining a police
officer during a trial -- it went like this:
Q: Officer, did you see my client
fleeing the scene?
A: No sir, but I subsequently observed a person matching the
description of the offender running several streets away.
Q: Officer, who provided this
description?
A: The officer who responded to the scene.
Q: A fellow officer provided the
description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?
A: Yes sir, with my life.
Q: With your life? Let me ask you
this then officer, do you have a locker room in the police station, a room
where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?
A: Yes sir, we do.
Q: And do you have a locker in
that room?
A: Yes sir, I do.
Q: And do you have a lock on your
locker?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Now why is it, officer, if you
trust your fellow officers with your life, that you find it necessary to lock
your locker in a room you share with those officers?
A: You see sir, we share the building with a court complex, and
sometimes defence lawyers have been known to walk through that room.
