Emergency Response Belt

Background

Police training and the operational application in relation to the use of force (rightly) continues to receive intense media scrutiny. Over the past 7 years there has been tremendous change in training programmes and equipment, all with the aim of enhancing the safety of officers and the public. The need to continue research and further develop such training in an informed and structured manner is widely acknowledged both within the service itself and amongst those agencies that closely examine use of force incidents. 

As well as the introduction of new techniques and equipment, a further integral part of this structured approach is the introduction of a use of force reporting system. A detailed system allowing officers to report on incidents, with an audit trail, showing actions taken was first introduced in the Northamptonshire Police (UK) in 1994 and has continued to develop to date. This was acknowledged as good practice in the HMI Thematic inspection (Officer Safety - Minimising the risk of Violence 1997/8). A national reporting process has since been established, which whilst not fully utilised across the UK, is now providing valuable data on issues relating to officer and subject safety. Such systems allow accurate identification of specific areas of risk. It is then incumbent on the employer (Chief Officers) to identify control measures in order to eliminate or reduce such risks. Such measures may include training, information and equipment. Following introduction of such a control measure, the reporting process allows measurement of its effectiveness. Such a process helped Northamptonshire Police to proceed to trial with a limb-restraining device - The Emergency Response Belt (ERB).

Northamptonshire were able to identify the risk of prisoner violence post arrest and handcuffing: In the 98/9 year there were 1043 use of force incidents. 148 (14%) of those took place in or at police vehicles, with handcuffed subjects. 36 of those incidents resulted in police injury (24.4%) and 45 resulted in prisoner injury (30.6%). Damage to police vehicle included windows being kicked out or smashed and buckling of doors and damage to other interior fittings. Figures for the 99/2000 year also identified the same problem. Limited research with other forces also showed a similar pattern of behaviour and injuries. 

Three forces progressed to the stage of identifying what are considered to be suitable limb restraint devices. Following liaison with the relevant ACPO committee it was decided to conduct trials of such devices. Information from those trials will be utilised to produce a national user requirement which assists forces by identifying those issues for consideration should forces decide to adopt a limb restraint device.