You may be aware from conference that the Government have been hinting they wish to re-visit H&S within the Police. There is a meeting planned with Lord Young on 8th July regarding this – CLICK HERE
Following a complaint ref. a back injury resulting from poor seating at a workstation at Gloucester Custody, I have sought an immediate remedy / repair (& cures for several other things), which I am assured, will be underway within the next week. Having previously raised this issue in November, I considered use of an improvement notice to force the issue, but I am hopeful I won’t have to resort to that.
Regarding projected night staffing in rural areas, and the attached (or not, as the case may be!) risk assessments. This may be a way to further the rollout of TASER – you may be interested to note we are bottom of the pile here (literally last), for example A&S are now trial issuing to single crewed officers on rural BCUs, D&C have a commitment to train 750 within 3 years, ( there are170 non AFO users at present), etc.
Illicit Drug Laboratories – we seem to be one of the more proactive forces in trying to ensure early intervention by CBRN personnel, judging from a nationwide survey I just answered (which is nice!)
Here we look at some of the cases we have been involved in recently where we have relied upon breaches of health & safety legislation when acting for police officers.
Police Horses
A mounted officer with the Metropolitan Police sustained a serious leg fracture when she was thrown from her horse when it bucked whilst on patrol. The horse was a young animal that was not yet fully operational. The horse bucked and threw the officer after being spooked by being enthusiastically approached by members of the public. A claim has been brought against the Metropolitan Police on the basis that they are strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 2 of the Animals Act 1971, which provides that the keeper of an animal is strictly liable for any damage caused in certain circumstances including damage caused by an animal owing to a circumstantial characteristic, which is known to the keeper and is likely to cause severe harm. This case is being advanced on the basis that a young horse is likely to buck when spooked and that this is a characteristic which is likely to cause serious harm.
Police Dogs
We have recently issued court proceedings on behalf of a Hampshire Officer who was attacked by his police dog. Our client was one of a number of officers called to a school where there had been a suspected break in. On sighting some suspects on the premises he released his dog, who reacted by attacking his handler rather than the suspects. This claim is also being brought under section 2 of the Animals Act arguing that it is a known characteristic that German Shepherds attack in certain circumstances. Whilst German Shepherds do not normally attack people as a matter of course, when in intercept/attack mode or otherwise agitated they will do. Liability is disputed by Hampshire Constabulary and the proceedings are continuing towards trial.
Wet Floors
A West Yorkshire Officer who was a member of the Counter Terrorism Unit based at Leeds Bradford Airport slipped on a wet floor in the baggage hall, sustaining a shoulder injury. The airport denied liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act arguing that they had sub-contracted the cleaning of the baggage hall to a reputable cleaning company. The cleaning company denied liability on the basis that the floor was in the process of being cleaned when the accident occurred and that appropriate signage had been put up to warn of the slipping hazard. The matter proceeded to Trial at Leeds County Court where the Judge accepted the officer’s evidence and found that the cleaning company was entirely to blame. Damages in excess of £9,000 were awarded.
A Cambridgeshire Officer was injured when she slipped on a wet floor in a police station. The floor had been cleaned by contract cleaners but no warning signs had been erected. Liability was established against the Force who were in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide a safe place of work and their statutory duty set out in the Workplace Regulations to keep all traffic routes free of substances likely to cause someone to slip.
The case settled shortly before Trial, damages being agreed for just over £190,000.
Police Van
A West Yorkshire Officer was attempting to pull herself into a public order van by holding the side of the stanchion between the main sliding door and the front passenger door when a colleague jumped in and shut the door on her hand. A claim was brought alleging that there were no handles for the officers to pull themselves in with or to hold on to. It was also argued that the Force were vicariously liable for the actions of the officer who failed to observe that the door was not clear before slamming it shut. The injured officer received compensation with a 25% deduction for contributory negligence for not looking where she was putting her hands.
Drugs Raid
A Nottinghamshire Officer was injured whilst taking part in a drugs raid. The incident occurred when he entered the property and stepped on a piece of debris that had come off the door that had been broken down by the Method of Entry Officers. The officer sustained a serious ankle injury. Numerous issues were raised including the fact that the officer had not been adequately briefed and had been included on the call at the last minute. Criticisms were also made of the overall organisation of the operation and, more specifically, the failure to provide an adequate dragon light or other lighting for the dark entrance to the property. The Force in this initially admitted liability but then withdrew the admission after proceedings had been issued. The claim eventually settled for £60,000 on the day before trial.
Obstruction to a Traffic Route
A Hertfordshire Officer successfully recovered compensation in excess of £20,000 after injuring her back when she tripped on a sports bag that had been left on the floor by a colleague. The officer was escorting a prisoner to an interview room when she tripped over the bag which had been left at the side of a desk protruding into a traffic route. The claim was brought on the basis of a breach of the duty in the Workplace Regulations to keep traffic routes free from obstacles likely to cause someone to trip or fall in a traffic route.
In another similar claim in West Yorkshire an officer tripped and injured his shoulder when he tripped over a colleague’s PSU bag which had been left on the floor. Here the claim was progressed using a number of allegations including a failure on the part of the Force to provide adequate storage space at the station for officers to keep their PSU bags. Liability was admitted and damages of £1,250 were paid.
Stress arising out of the horrific nature of work itself
We have seen numerous examples of Officers who have suffered psychiatric breakdown as a result of witnessing horrific events, or involvement in disturbing investigations. The courts do not recognise, however, that some roles in the police force are uniquely stressful and that those officers who find their mental health suffering as a result are rarely compensated. In fact, in Sutherland v. Hatton (2002), the Court of Appeal held that no single occupation was intrinsically damaging to health. A court must instead find that it was foreseeable that an individual employee was at risk of mental breakdown before a duty of care arises.
Confidential Welfare Services
The Court of Appeal also found in the Sutherland Case that an employer who offers a confidential welfare counselling service to employees who fear they may be suffering from harmful levels of stress is unlikely to be found liable to pay compensation for work-related stress. Most forces do offer such services. Although a subsequent decision has confirmed that such confidential counselling services should not be considered as a panacea to work-stress claims, it does add an additional barrier to many cases where such facilities were open to the officer to take up if they chose.
Work Overload Claims
These claims are common but very difficult to succeed with. An Officer would need to be able to prove that the psychiatric harm they suffered from was foreseeable to their employer. Establishing foreseeability depends on what an employer knew or ought to have known about an individual employee.
The Courts will look at the nature of the job, whether unreasonable demands had been placed on the Officer and problems experienced by others doing similar work. But what is most important are the signs of impending mental breakdown coming direct from the Officer. If the only remedy to an Officer’s condition is dismissal, an employer will not normally be held to be liable for allowing a willing employee to continue in the job. Even if injury was foreseeable, a Claimant must still identify the steps their employer could or should have taken to stop their condition developing which were likely to do some good.
Bullying and Harassment Claims
Claims for bullying and harassment at work can potentially be brought in both negligence and under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Claims brought under the Act have the advantage that forseeability of injury does not have to be proven. However, the Courts have adopted a very restrictive approach to the concept of harassment. The conduct complained of must be extreme, stopping little short of what would amount to criminal behaviour. It must be established that the conduct (on more than one occasion) was oppressive and unreasonable. Generally claims for bullying are very difficult to prove. What one party perceives as bullying another will consider firm management. Unless it is possible to establish with evidence that an officer was being subjected to a campaign of bullying which was likely to cause mental breakdown, the claim would be unlikely to succeed.
Summary
Stress cases are common but notoriously difficult to succeed with. Most cases fail due to the lack of foreseeability. This remains an uncertain and difficult area of the law and is likely to continue to be so for many years to come.
H&S ~ July JBB Briefing
You may be aware from conference that the Government have been hinting they wish to re-visit H&S within the Police. There is a meeting planned with Lord Young on 8th July regarding this – CLICK HERE
Following a complaint ref. a back injury resulting from poor seating at a workstation at Gloucester Custody, I have sought an immediate remedy / repair (& cures for several other things), which I am assured, will be underway within the next week. Having previously raised this issue in November, I considered use of an improvement notice to force the issue, but I am hopeful I won’t have to resort to that.
Regarding projected night staffing in rural areas, and the attached (or not, as the case may be!) risk assessments. This may be a way to further the rollout of TASER – you may be interested to note we are bottom of the pile here (literally last), for example A&S are now trial issuing to single crewed officers on rural BCUs, D&C have a commitment to train 750 within 3 years, ( there are170 non AFO users at present), etc.
Illicit Drug Laboratories – we seem to be one of the more proactive forces in trying to ensure early intervention by CBRN personnel, judging from a nationwide survey I just answered (which is nice!)
Theres now a H&S link on the central website you can refer to –http://www.polfed.org/membersarea/health_safety_information.asp
Case Watch
Here we look at some of the cases we have been involved in recently where we have relied upon breaches of health & safety legislation when acting for police officers.
Police Horses
A mounted officer with the Metropolitan Police sustained a serious leg fracture when she was thrown from her horse when it bucked whilst on patrol. The horse was a young animal that was not yet fully operational. The horse bucked and threw the officer after being spooked by being enthusiastically approached by members of the public. A claim has been brought against the Metropolitan Police on the basis that they are strictly liable to pay compensation under Section 2 of the Animals Act 1971, which provides that the keeper of an animal is strictly liable for any damage caused in certain circumstances including damage caused by an animal owing to a circumstantial characteristic, which is known to the keeper and is likely to cause severe harm. This case is being advanced on the basis that a young horse is likely to buck when spooked and that this is a characteristic which is likely to cause serious harm.
Police Dogs
We have recently issued court proceedings on behalf of a Hampshire Officer who was attacked by his police dog. Our client was one of a number of officers called to a school where there had been a suspected break in. On sighting some suspects on the premises he released his dog, who reacted by attacking his handler rather than the suspects. This claim is also being brought under section 2 of the Animals Act arguing that it is a known characteristic that German Shepherds attack in certain circumstances. Whilst German Shepherds do not normally attack people as a matter of course, when in intercept/attack mode or otherwise agitated they will do. Liability is disputed by Hampshire Constabulary and the proceedings are continuing towards trial.
Wet Floors
A West Yorkshire Officer who was a member of the Counter Terrorism Unit based at Leeds Bradford Airport slipped on a wet floor in the baggage hall, sustaining a shoulder injury. The airport denied liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act arguing that they had sub-contracted the cleaning of the baggage hall to a reputable cleaning company. The cleaning company denied liability on the basis that the floor was in the process of being cleaned when the accident occurred and that appropriate signage had been put up to warn of the slipping hazard. The matter proceeded to Trial at Leeds County Court where the Judge accepted the officer’s evidence and found that the cleaning company was entirely to blame. Damages in excess of £9,000 were awarded.
A Cambridgeshire Officer was injured when she slipped on a wet floor in a police station. The floor had been cleaned by contract cleaners but no warning signs had been erected. Liability was established against the Force who were in breach of their non-delegable duty of care to provide a safe place of work and their statutory duty set out in the Workplace Regulations to keep all traffic routes free of substances likely to cause someone to slip.
The case settled shortly before Trial, damages being agreed for just over £190,000.
Police Van
A West Yorkshire Officer was attempting to pull herself into a public order van by holding the side of the stanchion between the main sliding door and the front passenger door when a colleague jumped in and shut the door on her hand. A claim was brought alleging that there were no handles for the officers to pull themselves in with or to hold on to. It was also argued that the Force were vicariously liable for the actions of the officer who failed to observe that the door was not clear before slamming it shut. The injured officer received compensation with a 25% deduction for contributory negligence for not looking where she was putting her hands.
Drugs Raid
A Nottinghamshire Officer was injured whilst taking part in a drugs raid. The incident occurred when he entered the property and stepped on a piece of debris that had come off the door that had been broken down by the Method of Entry Officers. The officer sustained a serious ankle injury. Numerous issues were raised including the fact that the officer had not been adequately briefed and had been included on the call at the last minute. Criticisms were also made of the overall organisation of the operation and, more specifically, the failure to provide an adequate dragon light or other lighting for the dark entrance to the property. The Force in this initially admitted liability but then withdrew the admission after proceedings had been issued. The claim eventually settled for £60,000 on the day before trial.
Obstruction to a Traffic Route
A Hertfordshire Officer successfully recovered compensation in excess of £20,000 after injuring her back when she tripped on a sports bag that had been left on the floor by a colleague. The officer was escorting a prisoner to an interview room when she tripped over the bag which had been left at the side of a desk protruding into a traffic route. The claim was brought on the basis of a breach of the duty in the Workplace Regulations to keep traffic routes free from obstacles likely to cause someone to trip or fall in a traffic route.
In another similar claim in West Yorkshire an officer tripped and injured his shoulder when he tripped over a colleague’s PSU bag which had been left on the floor. Here the claim was progressed using a number of allegations including a failure on the part of the Force to provide adequate storage space at the station for officers to keep their PSU bags. Liability was admitted and damages of £1,250 were paid.
Stress arising out of the horrific nature of work itself
We have seen numerous examples of Officers who have suffered psychiatric breakdown as a result of witnessing horrific events, or involvement in disturbing investigations. The courts do not recognise, however, that some roles in the police force are uniquely stressful and that those officers who find their mental health suffering as a result are rarely compensated. In fact, in Sutherland v. Hatton (2002), the Court of Appeal held that no single occupation was intrinsically damaging to health. A court must instead find that it was foreseeable that an individual employee was at risk of mental breakdown before a duty of care arises.
Confidential Welfare Services
The Court of Appeal also found in the Sutherland Case that an employer who offers a confidential welfare counselling service to employees who fear they may be suffering from harmful levels of stress is unlikely to be found liable to pay compensation for work-related stress. Most forces do offer such services. Although a subsequent decision has confirmed that such confidential counselling services should not be considered as a panacea to work-stress claims, it does add an additional barrier to many cases where such facilities were open to the officer to take up if they chose.
Work Overload Claims
These claims are common but very difficult to succeed with. An Officer would need to be able to prove that the psychiatric harm they suffered from was foreseeable to their employer. Establishing foreseeability depends on what an employer knew or ought to have known about an individual employee.
The Courts will look at the nature of the job, whether unreasonable demands had been placed on the Officer and problems experienced by others doing similar work. But what is most important are the signs of impending mental breakdown coming direct from the Officer. If the only remedy to an Officer’s condition is dismissal, an employer will not normally be held to be liable for allowing a willing employee to continue in the job. Even if injury was foreseeable, a Claimant must still identify the steps their employer could or should have taken to stop their condition developing which were likely to do some good.
Bullying and Harassment Claims
Claims for bullying and harassment at work can potentially be brought in both negligence and under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Claims brought under the Act have the advantage that forseeability of injury does not have to be proven. However, the Courts have adopted a very restrictive approach to the concept of harassment. The conduct complained of must be extreme, stopping little short of what would amount to criminal behaviour. It must be established that the conduct (on more than one occasion) was oppressive and unreasonable. Generally claims for bullying are very difficult to prove. What one party perceives as bullying another will consider firm management. Unless it is possible to establish with evidence that an officer was being subjected to a campaign of bullying which was likely to cause mental breakdown, the claim would be unlikely to succeed.
Summary
Stress cases are common but notoriously difficult to succeed with. Most cases fail due to the lack of foreseeability. This remains an uncertain and difficult area of the law and is likely to continue to be so for many years to come.
Miles Ajinkya, H&S Lead