Does health and safety legislation apply to the police ?

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.