when is it OK to physically restrain a member of the public

[treequip]

I do big firework displays every November. The displays are rigged to fire automatically to music, ie hit the start button, sit back and watch for the next 20mins.

 

A couple of the sites I do have problems with teenagers climbing in ove a 7ft steel fence and wandering around in the drop zone, note this isn't land with a public right of access and we are not responsible for security. This causes enormous problems as outright safety would dictate the show is stopped, but that means it is then ruined for the audience of up to 20,000 people, who have often paid £5 or so each, so they are unhappy, the organisers are unhappy, we would end up not being paid, despite having let off £10k worth of fireworks and the company would have the choice of paying the 10 or so people a day's wages from their own pocket, or not and losing the labour for next time.

 

So, we don't stop, unless they reach the fireworks themselves. To stop this, I, along with a couple of others, stand in the drop zone ourselves to drive them out. Voice alone normally does it, or charging straight at them (I probably hold some form of record for the 100m in steel toe capped wellies!) but the hi-viz mentality definitely comes into play in controlling them to leave the site, usually escorting them to the police who give them a good talking to, which at least stops them coming back for the remainder of the show.

 

Alec

 

From a R/A point of view, that's a poor system, when you say you aren't responsible for safety, well that responsibility may be given to others on site but the law will hold you liable to one extent or another, if there was a chance of people entering a danger area you shouldn't have pressed the button.

 

Your system requires you to have personnel in the danger area, that is an unsafe working practice, the trespassers should be prevented from entering the area and if that means a line of personnel at the fence then that's how it has to be.

[arniecardigan]

No you aren't, just because they have assaulted you doesn't mean you can assault them, you are supposed to set up a system of work that prevents the danger of injury to members of the public. Laying hands on people cant be part of that.

 

Common Law right to self defence says different if you were acting lawfully and they assaulted you you can act reasonably to protect yourself from further assault! common law actually gives the right to strike pre-emptively if you have no doubt in your mind that you were about to be assaulted! it doesn't mean you won't get arrested for it but that is your defence.

[treequip]

Common Law right to self defence says different if you were acting lawfully and they assaulted you you can act reasonably to protect yourself from further assault! common law actually gives the right to strike pre-emptively if you have no doubt in your mind that you were about to be assaulted! it doesn't mean you won't get arrested for it but that is your defence.

 

The above is correct as a general principal if completely out of context.

 

In this case the person pushed past and continued on their way, if it was an on going assault you could defend yourself but since the assault is over tit for tat is not defendable in law.

 

You have also missed the context that the "assaulted" created the situation by poor management.

[LGP Eddie]

From a R/A point of view, that's a poor system, when you say you aren't responsible for safety, well that responsibility may be given to others on site but the law will hold you liable to one extent or another, if there was a chance of people entering a danger area you shouldn't have pressed the button.

 

Your system requires you to have personnel in the danger area, that is an unsafe working practice, the trespassers should be prevented from entering the area and if that means a line of personnel at the fence then that's how it has to be.

 

I absolutely agree with you, that is a total recipe for disaster there!

 

I've just shown it to my wife who was head of security for the largest theme park in the country for some 5 years, and she's nearly fell off the chair!

They obviously put on some massive displays and the firing zone security is always their responsibility?

 

Leave it to your site owners to provide you with a totally secure firing zone, and only press that button when you have the all clear from them and yourselves all is safe to proceed.

If they can't provide the safe window for the display to proceed, it's down to them and you should have a good enough contract to ensure all your costs are covered in this instance.

 

Simply running around chasing kids in a zone full of huge display fireworks, and letting them off even with the chance of someone getting in could cost you more than the losses of cancelling?

 

In regard to the actual question of force? It's a total no, unless someone is in actual danger? If you have to stop 20 men working for one idiot, that's how it has to be?

Air horn is the obvious one to help prevent them or shock them into moving. But if they're in a clearly marked risk zone, and they should have passed some physical barrier to clearly mark this. Then it's a simple case of ask them to move or you will call the Police immediately as they are preventing essential works.

 

The only circumstance to touch them is if something was actually going to harm them and you physically push them from the danger to prevent injury. In all honesty it should never come to this?

 

Eddie.

[woody3]

down tools and wait for the police or security, no need to assault anybody

[agg221]

From a R/A point of view, that's a poor system, when you say you aren't responsible for safety, well that responsibility may be given to others on site but the law will hold you liable to one extent or another, if there was a chance of people entering a danger area you shouldn't have pressed the button.

 

Your system requires you to have personnel in the danger area, that is an unsafe working practice, the trespassers should be prevented from entering the area and if that means a line of personnel at the fence then that's how it has to be.

 

I didn't say safety, I said security, ie the display organisers provide security personnel but we frequently end up covering the back of the site.

 

Whilst you suggestion of a line of personnel would, in theory, be a solution, we are talking about a drop zone about the size of five football pitches so you would need hundreds, if not thousands of people to achieve this. We are reliant on a physical boundary which is a significant obstacle (7ft park railings, which do not have breaches). In a R/A you are required to take reasonable steps to address foreseeable issues - this is a reasonable step. Otherwise it escalates indefinitely (it would clearly be absurd to have additional measures to deal with people scaling 20' walls with a grappling hook and a rope ). In addition, we will have sufficient people out there, stationed inside the boundary, to see what is happening, hence to head people off if they come towards the fireworks, or to stop the show before they reach them, but you are reliant on your presence to stop them, or the choice of making physical contact.

 

We delayed firing by 20mins on one show last November to clear a group out who had slipped in during the evening and were skulking in the bushes, so 'we shouldn't push the button' is definitely covered, as (unsurprisingly) is just about everything else in the R/A, since as you can imagine it is pretty comprehensive.

 

The key point though is that when you are trying to do a job and alongside that you are trying to address the issue of people doing things which they know full well they should not do then the impact is significant.

 

Alec

[TRADITIONAL LOGGERS]

The public often feel it's fine to ignore legal work signs and polite verbal instructions. Citizen's legal right of arrest for breach of the peace is final method to avoid a serious accident / death. We have done this twice in 20 years of business and on both occasions called the Police who cautioned the persons and gave us no hassle. (Cyclists and Hikers seem the worse) I do ride bikes!

[treequip]

The public often feel it's fine to ignore legal work signs and polite verbal instructions. Citizen's legal right of arrest for breach of the peace is final method to avoid a serious accident / death. We have done this twice in 20 years of business and on both occasions called the Police who cautioned the persons and gave us no hassle. (Cyclists and Hikers seem the worse) I do ride bikes!

 

 

When you say "legal work signs" do you mean they conform to the standard required by legislation or do you mean something else?

[Marc Lewis]

Tasers or stunguns. No contact, problem neutralized:bluboomteamenforcer

 

Thats a whole nuther can of worms:001_rolleyes:

 

We give a 10 sec warning on the pa system, then out come the water canons!!

[agg221]

 

Leave it to your site owners to provide you with a totally secure firing zone, and only press that button when you have the all clear from them and yourselves all is safe to proceed.

If they can't provide the safe window for the display to proceed, it's down to them and you should have a good enough contract to ensure all your costs are covered in this instance.

 

Simply running around chasing kids in a zone full of huge display fireworks, and letting them off even with the chance of someone getting in could cost you more than the losses of cancelling?

 

The text in bold is the issue - what is 'totally secure'? The same applies be it a firework display or tree works, basically anything which happens on an occasional basis, rather than being the dedicated purpose of the site.

 

It's quite possible that the company your wife worked for has used the company that I work for. A theme park with a dedicated site for displays can take steps which, for example, the local authority organising a display in a park cannot, however nothing is ever completely secure - if someone has the objective of going through/breaking in then they can usually manage it (see all the theft threads on here). I would imagine that, if you asked your wife whether someone who was determined to get into the firework firing area during the display could do so, there would be a way. As you state, you need a physical barrier such that it is clear to anyone passing that they are crossing a line. You then need this to be challenging enough to act as a deterrent to those who are reasonable. However, manning the barrier at all points is not always practical (and becomes less so, the longer it gets) and, if you are not going to use physical contact, to a point becomes irrelevant once the density of people is sufficient to see what is happening.

 

Perhaps the wrong impression has been given. This is not a case of 'fire regardless'. Displays are delayed until the site is clear. The challenge is maintaining the site clear during the firing window, against people who are determined to breach it (why I have no idea). During the time I have been doing this (20+ yrs) we have not had anyone get more than 10ft within the boundary, which lies outside the minimum drop zone, so the method works. Coincidentally we have had no injuries to the public or to personnel. Fortunately this has been achieved by verbal means and running in their general direction

 

The original point I was making is that, if someone is determined to head towards the fireworks, you are faced with the choice of stopping the display or using physical contact methods. The impact of stopping is significant, as outlined in my first post, hence I'm not sure what would happen in the hypothetical event of someone seeking to access the fireworks.

 

Alec