Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Can I please have any information related to the use of handcuffs by Metropolitan Police officers.

Please include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Purdy

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Purdy

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030003001
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/03/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "Can I please have any information related to the use of handcuffs by
Metropolitan Police officers.

Please include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical
instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related
documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.

* Can I please have any information related to the use of the Police
issue retractable baton by Metropolitan Police officers. Please
include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical
instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related
documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.
* Can I please have any information related to the use of Incapacitant
spray by Metropolitan Police officers.

Please include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical
instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related
documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.

* Please can you provide the training literature for the following

training courses?

The use of force
- Personal Management Model
- Restraints and escorts
- Search techniques
- The use of handcuffs
- The use of batons
- The use of CS Spray
- Take downs and restraints
- Ground defence/weapon retention
- Strikes
- Role play (which may/may not involve
a handcuffing scenario)"

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me at the above e-mail address, quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Purdy

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030003001

I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/03/2010. I note
you seek access to the following information:

* Can I please have any information related to the use of handcuffs by
Metropolitan Police officers. Please include, training manuals,
policies, procedures, technical instruction, notices, advice, safety
guidance, or other related documentation concerning the use of this
piece of Police equipment. Can I please have any information related
to the use of the Police issue retractable baton by Metropolitan
Police officers. Please include, training manuals, policies,
procedures, technical instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance,
or other related documentation concerning the use of this piece of
Police equipment. Can I please have any information related to the use
of Incapacitant spray by Metropolitan Police officers. Please include,
training manuals, policies, procedures, technical instruction,
notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related documentation
concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment. Please can you
provide the training literature for the following training courses?
The use of force - Personal Management Model - Restraints and escorts
- Search techniques - The use of handcuffs - The use of batons - The
use of CS Spray - Take downs and restraints - Ground defence/weapon
retention - Strikes - Role play (which may/may not involve a
handcuffing scenario) .

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Public Order and Operational Support

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release the information requested. This
letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Under the Act, there are two types of exemption that can be applied to
information considered unsuitable for public release. These exemptions are
referred to as absolute exemptions and qualified exemptions.

When an absolute exemption is applied to information, a public authority
is not required to consider whether release of that information is in the
'public interest'.

When a qualified exemption is applied to information, a public authority
must establish whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or
withholding the requested information. The public interest is determined
by conducting a 'Public Interest Test' (PIT).

Both absolute and qualified exemptions can be further divided into
class-based or prejudice-based exemptions.

Class-based exemptions are those in which it is assumed the disclosure of
information would result in harm. There is therefore no requirement to
demonstrate what that harm may be.

Prejudiced-based exemptions are those where firstly, it is necessary to
establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure
and secondly, if prejudice/harm is not certain, to determine the
likelihood of it occurring.

Having examined the requested information, I have found that the following
exemptions are applicable.

1. Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement / Qualified Prejudice Based
Exemption
2. Section 38(1)(b) - Health and Safety / Qualified Prejudice Based
Exemption

Under Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act, public authorities are able to
withhold information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders. Under Section 38(1)(b) of the Act, public
authorities are able to withhold information where its release would, or
would be likely endanger the safety of any individual.

I have applied this exemption in that the MPS Officer Safety Manual in
which the requested documentation is held, forms the basis of officer
safety training in the MPS. This training documentation is accordingly
vital in ensuring officer competence in the use defence and search
techniques and is intrinsically linked to both officer and public safety.

I consider that, in order to satisfy your request, specific search and
defence techniques would have to be placed into the public domain. These
procedures, if examined by the offender, would provide them with a
tactical advantage over the police service. This risk is primarily three
fold. Principally, the offender, with knowledge of police techniques,
would alter their behaviour to counter police tactics. The offender would
accordingly be more able to commit crime (i.e. resisting arrest or a
lawful search). Secondly, this knowledge would likely provide the offender
with greater confidence in committing crime, leading to further crime
being committed by the offender. Thirdly, knowledge of police techniques
would render police officers at greater risk of harm from the offender, as
they would have a detailed knowledge of police techniques. This would also
place the offender at greater risk as it is likely greater force may be
required, in particular in detaining individuals, than would otherwise be
necessary.

Please find the public interest test considerations that I have identified
and considered in relation to my application of Section 31(1)(a)(b) and
Section 38(1)(b) of the Act.

Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Openness and Transparency
The general public rightly expect police officers to have the necessary
training when interacting with members of the public. The release of the
requested training material would show that the MPS has a comprehensive
and clearly documented procedure for safely engaging the general public.

Public Awareness/Debate
The MPS is committed to building closer relationships with the communities
it polices, of which an important part is to share information of public
interest. In this case, the release of the requested training material
would ensure that the general public have a full understanding of specific
defence and search techniques, facilitating for an informed and accurate
public debate in this area of policing.

Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Police Service

Crime Prevention and Detection
One of principle roles of the Police Service is to prevent and detect
crime. It is likely that the offender, with knowledge of police
techniques, would alter their behaviour enabling them to commit further
crime. In the case of this specific request, release would be likely to
make specific interactions, namely arrests, detentions and searches more
difficult. In addition the offender, armed with a detailed knowledge of
police techniques, would feel more confident in committing crime. This
would be likely to lead to further crime being committed by the offender.

Officer/Public Safety
There are occasions where the release of information relating to police
techniques would have an adverse effect upon public safety. In this case,
public release of the requested police techniques would provide the
offender with information that would, in the case of specific
interactions, namely arrests, detentions and searches, place officers and
offenders at greater risk of injury.

EVALUATION
When balancing the public interest test, I have to consider whether the
public interests lies in favour of releasing information into the public
domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the
requested information. Though I accept that complete transparency in
response to requests concerning police techniques/tactics would engage the
general public facilitating informed public debate, there is a
considerable risk that release would make detaining, arresting or
searching the offender more difficult and dangerous. Clearly the release
of any information that is likely to assist the offender cannot be in the
public interest. For this reason, I have refused your request.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 3153 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Alex Norrie
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Handcuffs usage'.

I do not accept that release of this information would in anyway aid the committing of crime or as you suggest 'increase the confidence' of those intent on committing crime.

You suggest specific exclusion on the grounds of health and Safety, and prevention/detection of crime.

I believe neither of these would apply in the circumstances. Certainly you actually suggest in the response that 'resisting arrest and lawful search' form part of the prevention and detection of crime. I fail to see that either of these situations would be compromised by public access to Police training guidance.

To the contrary, I believe that the safety of the public would be enhanced greatly if there was an awareness of what techniques were permitted in by officers in arrest situations. Indeed there have been a number of recent examples, particularly around the G20 protests in which the actions of the officers have been brought under scrutiny. If the public were aware of what techniques/force etc was permitted against them then if techniques outside of these parameters are utilised, then officers can be held accountable.

This accountability would in turn ensure that 'safe' techniques are deployed when an officer(s) resort to physical force.

I would also add that the FOI act requires the public body to disclose material or assist with the disclosure of material as best they can. I have requested a number of documents, which it appears you have used a blanket refusal to prevent disclosure of all documents, some of which are I am led to believe already available in the public domain.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

Yours faithfully,

Mark Purdy

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Purdy

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010040002087

I write in connection with your letter dated 12 April 2010 requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your request
for information relating to:

* FOIA original case 2010030003001.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 11 May 2010.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Purdy

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010040002087

Further to our letter of 15 April 2010, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* Original FOI case number 2010030003001.

I hope to complete your review no later than 4 June 2010. Should there be
any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Purdy

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010040002087

Further to our letter of 13th May 2010, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* Original FOI case number 2010030003001.

I hope to complete your review no later than 29 June 2010. I can now
confirm I am near completion of this review and do not envisage any
further delay to responding to you by this date.
I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
Quality and Assurance Advisor
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Purdy

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010040002087

Further to our letter of 13th May 2010, I am now able to provide a full
response to your complaint dated 12 April 2010 concerning:

** FOIA Complaint pertaining to 2010030003001.

Original Requests (received between 18:21 and 19:45 on the 14 March 2010):

14 March 2010 18:21

Can I please have any information related to the use of handcuffs by
Metropolitan Police officers.

Please include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical
instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related
documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.

14 March 2010 18:22

Can I please have any information related to the use of the Police issue
retractable baton by Metropolitan Police officers.

Please include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical
instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related
documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.

14 March 2010 18:24

Can I please have any information related to the use of Incapacitant spray
by Metropolitan Police officers.

Please include, training manuals, policies, procedures, technical
instruction, notices, advice, safety guidance, or other related
documentation concerning the use of this piece of Police equipment.

14 March 2010 19:45

Please can you provide the training literature for the following
training courses?

The use of force
- Personal Management Model
- Restraints and escorts
- Search techniques
- The use of handcuffs
- The use of batons
- The use of CS Spray
- Take downs and restraints
- Ground defence/weapon retention
- Strikes
- Role play (which may/may not involve a handcuffing scenario)

Request for a Review:

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Handcuffs usage'. I do not accept
that release of this information would in anyway aid the committing of
crime or as you suggest 'increase the confidence' of those intent on
committing crime. You suggest specific exclusion on the grounds of health
and Safety, and prevention/detection of crime. I believe neither of these
would apply in the circumstances. Certainly you actually suggest in the
response that 'resisting arrest and lawful search' form part of the
prevention and detection of crime. I fail to see that either of these
situations would be compromised by public access to Police training
guidance.

To the contrary, I believe that the safety of the public would be enhanced
greatly if there was an awareness of what techniques were permitted in by
officers in arrest situations. Indeed there have been a number of recent
examples, particularly around the G20 protests in which the actions of the
officers have been brought under scrutiny. If the public were aware of
what techniques/force etc was permitted against them then if techniques
outside of these parameters are utilised, then officers can be held
accountable. This accountability would in turn ensure that 'safe'
techniques are deployed when an officer(s) resort to physical force.

I would also add that the FOI act requires the public body to disclose
material or assist with the disclosure of material as best they can. I
have requested a number of documents, which it appears you have used a
blanket refusal to prevent disclosure of all documents, some of which are
I am led to believe already available in the public domain.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ha...

1. DECISION

1.1 The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to vary the original decision.

1.2 In accordance with The Code of Practice (Freedom Of Information Act
2000, section 45), I would like to advise you that this complaint process
provides a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions
taken in pursuant to the Act, including decisions taken about where the
public interest lies in respect of exempt information. It enables the
Public Authority concerned to consider a fresh decision to be taken on all
of the factors relevant to the issue.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this letter

2. Review decision in respect of MPS refusal notice regarding your
original request

I have reviewed the response provided to you and today decided to uphold
the MPS decision to exempt the requested information contained within the
MPS Officer Safety Manual by virtue of the following exemptions Section
31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement and Section 38(1)(b) Health and Safety. I
do not intend to repeat verbatim the evidence of harm and public interest
previously provided by the MPS, which the review found to be robust in
this case.

However, I take note of your comment in the request for a review '...I
have requested a number of documents, which appears you have used a
blanket refusal to prevent disclosure of all documents...' In this respect
of the review I have varied the decision and have therefore extracted the
relevant information from various MPS Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
which are pertinent to your request. Below I have outlined which SOPs I
have extracted the relevant information from.

3. Information related to the use of handcuffs.

Please find below the MPS Standard Operating Procedure for the use of
handcuffs:

Introduction

These revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) support the Officer
Safety training policy.

Application

This policy will come into effect from the date of this notice.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family
and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPA must be aware
of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS policy and
associated procedures. However, this policy applies in particular to
officers and staff in the following roles:
" All Police Officers
" All Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary
" All Designated Detention Officers

SOP details

Handcuffs

The following three styles of personal issue handcuffs are authorised:
" Chain link handcuffs (suitable for covert carriage)
" Rigid handcuffs
" Plasti-cuffs
Rigid handcuffs are individually issued to all police officers below the
rank of superintendent.

The application of handcuffs to a person is a use of force that must be
justified. The use of handcuffs can only be justified if their use is
proportionate, lawful and necessary. As with all uses of force, the
Officer Safety Model should assist officers to make timely and informed
decisions, based on their perception of the incident before them.
However, the following factors provide the basis of a guide, which may
assist officers when considering what action is appropriate:
" Age and gender
" Physique relative to the officer
" Perceived strength and fitness
" Injuries to police or others
" Environment
" Demeanour
Officers should be able to justify the use of handcuffs to supervisors,
courts and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, where necessary.
Officers should also be able to justify the period of time the handcuffs
were applied prior to their removal.

In establishing an objective basis for believing that a detained person
may escape, or attempt to escape, an officer may clearly react to whatever
the detained person says or does, but need not wait for an actual physical
act. The officer should also take into account the detained person's
previous propensity to escape, the seriousness of the offence and the
possible punishment he or she may expect to receive.

In establishing an objective basis for believing that a detained person
should be handcuffed because violence is likely to be used or attempted
against the officer or another, the officer need not wait for an actual
physical act. The officer should take into account the action of the
person immediately before they were detained. If violence was apparent in
the events leading to a person's arrest, regardless of whether or not the
arrest was for an offence involving violence, this could constitute
adequate objective grounds for handcuffing.

Verbal or non-verbal indications from a detained person of a possible
likelihood of violence can provide grounds for making an objective
decision. When a person is known or believed to be likely to use
violence, based on previous experience or intelligence sources, this will
also assist an officer to develop an objective basis for a decision to use
handcuffs.

Handcuffs that are not double locked may tighten and cause injury to the
detained person's wrist. Handcuffs should be double locked and checked
for tightness unless it is clearly impractical to do so. For example, if
the detained person is struggling or violent. In these circumstances,
steps should be taken to help ensure that the circulation of blood is not
restricted and that no unnecessary injury is caused.

For reasons of safety, detained persons should not be handcuffed to
officers or other articles.

Every use of handcuffs should be recorded (usually in an Evidence and
Action Book) detailing the grounds for their use and the facts brought to
the attention of the custody officer.

Cleaning or disposal of soiled handcuffs

From time-to-time handcuffs may become contaminated with blood or other
body fluids. Lightly soiled equipment (visible traces of blood on the
metal or plastic, for example), should be cleaned by the officer in the
following way:
" Wear disposable protective gloves
" Clean all traces of bodily fluid with disinfectant wipe
" Dispose of used wipe and gloves as clinical waste
If there are traces of body fluids in the locking mechanism or other
places that cannot be reached by the wipe, the cuffs should be disposed of
in the following way:
" Place the contaminated cuffs in a new sharps box with the dirty
gloves and wipes
" The boxed cuffs and any other contents need to be sent to Central
Property Services.
Plasti-cuffs and chain-linked cuffs

Plasti-cuffs are issued on the authority of a chief inspector or above.
In general, plasti-cuffs will not replace standard handcuffs. Rather,
they will provide officers with an addition tactical option to be
deployed, where necessary. For example, where a large number of arrests
are expected. It is also recognised that some specialist officers may be
authorised to carry plasti-cuffs in preference to standard handcuffs on
the grounds of personal safety. For example, motorcyclists, mounted
officers and those working in plain clothes. This decision will be made
locally based on an appropriate assessment of risk.

Chain link handcuffs are available for personal issue to plain-clothes
officers to facilitate covert carriage. Uniformed officers may also be
individually issued with chain link handcuffs (or plasti-cuffs) following
an OH referral (for example, reducing the weight carried on an officer's
utility belt following a back injury) or for a significant operational
need. The merits of each case will be assessed and recorded locally by a
chief inspector or above. Such permission will only be granted for the
duration of the operational need or any treatment authorised.

Medical implications of handcuffs and leg restraints

Careful consideration is needed in cases where a detained person has a
pre-existing injury that may be made worse by applying handcuffs and leg
restraints. When they are used the condition of the detained person
should be monitored and the decision regularly reassessed, where
appropriate, in order to minimise the risk of injury. For example, it
might become unreasonable to continue to use handcuffs and/or leg
restraints if the person becomes disproportionately distressed.

Positional asphyxia is defined as occurring when the position of the body
interferes with respiration, resulting in asphyxia. This condition can
occur extremely quickly (seconds rather than minutes) and can result in
death. Laying a restrained person in the prone (face down) position can
cause positional asphyxia particularly if the individual is overweight.

This condition is exacerbated when pressure is applied to the person's
back or he or she is left lying on his or her stomach. Once under control
individuals must not remain in, nor be transported in the prone (face
down) position. Rolling them onto their side, sitting, kneeling or
standing, in a position such that their chest and abdomen are upright and
unobstructed, are the optimum positions to facilitate the breathing of a
restrained person. The person should be carefully monitored at all times
and immediate steps taken to alleviate any breathing difficulties.

If there is any doubt regarding the medical well being of a detained
person, Emergency Life Support must be given and medical assistance sought
immediately.

Responsibilities

The responsibility for ownership and approval of this SOP is with the
Commander, Central Operations.

The responsibility for the implementation of this policy is with OCU
Commanders and all supervisors.

The policy is owned by the Public Order Strategic Committee and is to be
reviewed by the Officer Safety Policy Unit.

4. Information related to the use of the Police issue retractable baton.

Please find below the MPS Standard Operating Procedure for authorised
batons:

Introduction

These revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) support the Officer
Safety Training Policy.

Application

This policy will come into effect from the date of this notice.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family
and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPA must be aware
of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS policy and
associated procedures. However, this policy applies in particular to
officers employed in the following roles:
" All Police Officers
" All Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary

SOP details

Batons - Brief history of current batons

The wooden truncheon, which became largely outmoded and scarce, was
removed from the MPS in December 2004 and its operational carriage is not
permitted.

The black Acrylic Patrol Baton (APB), which was effectively replaced by
the Gravity Friction Lock Baton (GFLB), is more common and comes in 3
different lengths. Officers originally had the choice of a 22" (light or
heavy), 24" (light or heavy) and 26" (light only) baton. However, the
procurement contract for the black APB was not renewed following the
introduction of the GFLB in 1996.

However, officers were permitted the choice of retaining their wooden
truncheons or acrylic batons in preference to the GFLB on the strict
understanding that only one baton may be possessed. This practice is
still acceptable with the exception of the wooden truncheon, which is now
obsolete.

General issues

The baton is a made offensive weapon within the terms of the Prevention of
Crime Act 1953 and possession by officers whilst off duty may be an
offence unless they have 'reasonable excuse'.

Such possession will only be permitted if it is necessary for operational
reasons. This will normally be for the purposes of carriage to or from
another temporary place of duty. In these circumstances officers are
permitted to store the baton at their home address or other temporary
place of residence if working away from home. In general, police officers
are issued with 1 authorised baton. The 3 exceptions to this policy are:
" Officer Safety Trainers - who require additional batons solely
for training purposes
" Mounted Branch - GFLB and APB to assist mounted duties
" Public Order trained officers - 21" GFLB and 24" Public Order
Baton or APB to assist Public Order duties (only 1 baton to be worn)
The authorised MPS batons are:
" (Black) Acrylic Patrol Baton (22" 24" 26")
" (Metal) Gravity Friction Lock Baton (21" 26")
" (Black) Public Order Baton (24")
The 21" GFLB is the standard MPS baton and is issued to all recruits and
those joining the MPS from other police areas. The GFLB is also used to
replace damaged, lost or stolen batons. 16" GFLB's are available for
specialist plain clothes officers based on an appropriate assessment of
risk. Officers are permitted to transfer in possession of their
authorised baton/s at no cost to their new OCU.

In late 2006, an additional 24" solid (Public Order) Baton became
available to all Level 1 and Level 2 Public Order trained officers. The
additional baton will be issued as part of Public Order kit from the
Public Order Store.

Officers will only wear 1 baton whilst operationally employed. The choice
of approved baton carried will remain with the officer unless directed
otherwise by a supervisor for a specific operational reason or directions
made on behalf of GOLD for a particular Public Order event.

On surrendering a Public Order qualification, the Public Order Baton will
be returned to the Public Order Store and not retained by the officer.
With the exception of Mounted Branch, officers will not carry two batons
on their belt or other carriage system at any time.

Responsibilities

The responsibility for ownership and approval of this SOP is with the
Commander, Central Operations.

The responsibility for the implementation of this policy is with OCU
commanders and all supervisors.

The policy is owned by the Public Order Strategic Committee and is to be
reviewed by the Officer Safety Policy Unit.

5. Information related to the use of Incapacitant spray.

Please find below the MPS Standard Operating Procedure for CS Spray:

Introduction

These revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) support the Officer
Safety Training Policy.

Application

This policy will come into effect from the date of this notice.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family
and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPA must be aware
of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS policy and
associated procedures. However, this policy applies in particular to
officers and staff in the following roles:
" All Police Officers
" All Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary
" All Police Community Support Officers (aftercare information)
" All Designated Detention Officers (aftercare information)
" All identified Police Staff (aftercare information)

SOP details

CS Incapacitating Sprays

General

The use of CS spray is a use of force. This includes drawing the device
with intent to use it and threatening a person with it. An officer
discharging CS incapacitating spray or drawing the device and threatening
a person with it must record this use (usually in an Evidence and Actions
Report Book) and bring the matter to the immediate attention of a
supervisor.

Police officers who use force against another person or another's property
are personally responsible for their actions and may be required to
justify their actions in criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings.
Officers cannot simply rely on their status or orders given to them by
any other person, as a means of defence.

The lawful use of force invariably includes the overriding principle that
it must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary. As such, the exercise
of any power for which the use of force is contemplated should also be
reasonable, proportionate and necessary.

Authority for the use of force is found in:
" Common law
" Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
" Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

Carriage at public order events

Its use will be at the discretion of individual officers in accordance
with the overriding principle of proportionality, reasonableness and
necessity.

Such action on the part of an officer may have a profound impact on crowd
dynamics with obvious implications for public safety and public order.
The decision to use CS spray against a person in such circumstances must
be capable of subsequent justification and the closest scrutiny.

If an officer uses CS spray on an individual or individuals in a
pre-planned Public Order event, the fact is to be brought to the immediate
attention of the officer's serial supervisor and 'Gold' for the event.
The details are to be recorded on Form 3166 in addition to any other
record required.

It must be clearly understood that indiscriminate use of CS spray against
a crowd, which was not proportionate, reasonable and necessary, would be a
clear breach of this instruction.

Possession of CS incapacitating spray whilst off duty

By virtue of Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, a CS incapacitating spray
is a prohibited weapon and law controls its possession. It is not,
however, unlawful for a police officer to possess CS spray when acting in
the capacity of a police officer. Generally, this will be when an officer
is actually on duty but it is recognised that there may be circumstances
when possession is necessary and permissible even though off duty. As a
matter of policy these occasions will be strictly controlled.

When possession off duty is authorised the responsibility is on the
officer who has the CS spray to ensure safe custody and security of the
spray. Breaches of this instruction may result in criminal, civil or
discipline proceedings.

At no time may a person other than the authorised officer be allowed to
have the CS incapacitating spray. To allow such possession to take place
may constitute a criminal, civil or disciplinary offence.

Transport for London - Underground Systems

Use of CS incapacitating spray may have a profound effect on crowd
dynamics in the confines of the underground system and within train
carriages. The dangers associated with mass panic, crushing and falling
must be considered at all times.

When CS incapacitating spray is discharged on a Transport for London
premises a member of their staff must be informed. If it is necessary to
evacuate the premises the decision to reopen rests solely with Transport
for London staff.

If CS incapacitating spray is used on a train the officer discharging the
spray will be responsible for informing the driver. In cases where the
train is travelling between stations the communication cord will be pulled
at the next available station. Where the train has already stopped the
communication cord will be pulled to prevent the train moving before any
action being taken.

In the event of evacuation from the train Transport for London staff will
be responsible for informing their Network Control Centre and the train
will then be run empty to clear the carriage of CS contamination.

CS - Evidential Breath Machines

Where a person, who has been subject to CS spray, is unable to provide two
samples of breath for an evidential breath test due to possible medical
reasons, operators should follow procedures set out in Form MGDD/B.

Personal Issue

It is essential that a detailed record be maintained of all CS spray in
circulation. A record must be made at the point of issue. Form 3148 has
been designed for this purpose and must be completed and maintained.
Relevant reference numbers (e.g. custody number) should also be recorded.
In addition, OCUs are encouraged to record the details on local
electronic systems.

Once issued with a CS incapacitating spray, the officer is responsible for
its safekeeping and secure storage until such time as it has been
discharged or it is no longer required for operational use.

The integrity of devices is paramount. Officers must be able to account
for the history of their device. For this reason, devices must not to be
shared or borrowed.

Officers transferring between OCUs will take their issued device with
them. Both OCUs are responsible for ensuring that the appropriate records
are updated.

OCU commanders will consider the implementation of appropriate supervisory
systems to ensure that officers have a correctly issued device and that
audit trails are maintained.

CS Storage

CS incapacitating sprays should be stored in an upright position. Stocks
of CS spray may be stored by OCUs in suitably identifiable and secure
facilities. Hazmat signs must be displayed and relevant fire regulations
complied with.

Officers must store their personal issue CS spray in a secure locker
facility. If an officer does not have a secure locker the CS can be
stored in an alternative individual secure facility (a locked drawer, for
example).

Where neither of these facilities exists it will be the responsibility of
the OCU Commander to provide the necessary individual secure storage
facility.

Person arrested

Where an arrested person has been sprayed details of the circumstances
will be entered on the custody record and the device will be treated as an
exhibit. The device will be recorded on the person's custody record and
will be stored at the station where the prisoner is first dealt with. For
example, if CS is used on a prisoner arrested on warrant at one location
and that prisoner is later transferred to another station, the device will
not be transferred.

The device will be securely sealed in an appropriate size weapon tube and
sealed in a prisoners' property bag. It will be transferred to the OCU's
property store and retained for at least six years.

No arrest made

Details of the device will be entered on Form 66 and it will be stored at
the Borough responsible for the location where the incident took place.
The device will be sealed securely in an appropriate size weapon tube and
sealed in a prisoners' property bag. It will be transferred to the OCU's
property store and retained for at least six years.

Accidental discharges

OCU commanders will ensure that appropriate local arrangements exist for
the investigation of accidental discharges of CS. Due consideration must
be given to health and safety and discipline matters. An officer of at
least inspector rank will investigate each matter. Until the outcome of
any enquiry is known the device should be recorded and stored as above.

All devices stored for retention should be allocated a property code that
will prevent unnecessary work being created at a later stage. OCU records
on Form 3148 must be updated. The sprays should be stored in an upright
position.

CS canister disposal

Prior authority of an officer not below the rank of chief inspector is
required for all disposals. CS canisters may be disposed of in the
following circumstances:
" Accidental discharge - no discipline implications
" Defective device - no further action required
" Damaged device - no discipline implications
" Officer leaving MPS - no criminal or civil proceedings
" Retained for 6 years - no criminal or civil proceedings
" Recovered lost or stolen device - enquiries and actions complete

Replacement devices

Failure to keep accurate and up-to-date records of the issue of CS
incapacitating spray may lead to the compromising of the operational
integrity of devices. OCU commanders will ensure that an appropriate
system for the supervised issue of CS spray is in place. Such a system
should make provision for out-of-hours issue. When a designated person
issues a replacement device they will be responsible for ensuring that
Form 3148 is updated.

Recording / reporting of CS incidents

The recording of statistics is vital to ensure that the continued
development of CS incapacitating spray is supported by accurate and
up-to-date management information. This is particularly relevant where a
CS incapacitating spray is used and the person is unaffected or where the
effects are unusually severe.

All incidents involving the use of CS incapacitating spray (whether
discharged or drawn with intention to discharge) must be reported by the
officer concerned to an immediate supervisor. This will include accidental
discharges. The supervisor will consider attending the location to ensure
appropriate scene management and that correct decontamination procedures
have been adopted. Attendance will be particularly important where CS has
been discharged in, or in the vicinity of, commercial premises or enclosed
public areas.

All staff cross contaminated with CS following the discharge of a device
should report the incident as an injury on duty using MetAIR. This should
be clearly marked 'CS CROSS CONTAMINATION' to indicate the difference
between the incident and one of intentional assault by a person armed with
CS. In all cases the member of staff should be offered the opportunity of
being examined by a Forensic Physician.

The only circumstances when CS Spray accidents / incidents are reportable
to the HSE is as follows:

" Staff member exposed to CS Spray and is sick for more than 3 days
" Staff member exposed to CS Spray as a result of canister failure
" Member of public exposed to CS Spray and taken to hospital

Aftercare of persons sprayed

The correct action to be taken for the aftercare of persons affected by CS
and the decontamination of vehicles, clothing, and so on is dealt with
during Officer Safety training. In all cases a Form 3148A will be given
to all individuals involved.

All officers are reminded of their duty to ensure the well being of
persons in their custody and to report fully the circumstances to the
custody officer at the earliest opportunity. In particular the physical
condition and life signs of a detained person should be closely and
continually monitored during restraint and transportation.

Retention of contaminated clothing and other items

When it is necessary to seize clothing or other items that have been
contaminated with CS, and there remains a risk of subsequent cross
contamination, such items should be sealed in a property bag.

The person sealing the item will also be responsible for ensuring that the
bag is clearly marked with 'Health Hazard' tape, obtainable from Crime
Scene Examiners.

Reporting lost or stolen devices

The theft or loss of a device will be reported to a supervising officer
immediately. In all cases the supervisor to whom the report was made will
send a written report, as soon as practicable, to the OCU commander. The
report will outline the circumstances and any initial investigation. A
decision as to further action will be taken by the OCU commander who will
give due consideration to discipline matters, where relevant. Details of
the theft or loss and the serial number of the stolen device will be
entered on CRIS.

In addition to the above, an MSS will be sent to CO11 Public Order OCU's
Officer Safety Unit, which will maintain a database of lost or stolen
devices. The MSS report should include the serial number of the device,
the investigating and losing officers' details and the circumstances of
the loss. This is of particular importance should the device be found at
a later stage. CO11 are to be notified of the outcome of any
investigation in order that the database can be updated. This database is
the subject of frequent enquiries and it is essential that all information
is current.

Reporting of found devices

When a lost or stolen CS spray canister is recovered, an MSS will be sent
to CO11 giving details of the device including the serial number and
circumstances of recovery. Details will be entered on a Form 66 and the
device will be sealed in accordance with instructions mentioned
previously.

The receipt of the device itself might well be evidence of an offence.
Consideration should be given to preservation for forensic examination.
The crime manager will be responsible for ensuring that all relevant
criminal enquiries are completed.

Defective Devices

In circumstances where a device is found to be defective a report should
be sent to CO11, Officer Safety Unit. The device should be retained until
enquires are complete.

Issue of CS spray to OCUs

CS spray canisters will be issued from the Public Order Store The
following procedure will apply to all CS spray orders:
" A prior appointment will need to be made with the Public Order
Store
" MPS police officers or police staff, on production of a warrant
or identity card and a Form 740 (signed by a F & R representative) may
collect canisters from the store
" A record will be kept of the serial numbers of canisters issued
to OCUs and the receiving member of staff is responsible for maintaining
Form 3148 (CS spray issue)
" CS orders will be cross-charged to the OCU

Training and General Exposure Sprays

An inert spray is available for "CS" training purposes. The sprays are
issued in multiples of 20 and may be ordered , via the EBP system.

General exposure training spray, which contains a reduced level of CS, is
available to help familiarise police personnel with the effects of CS
incapacitating spray. The sprays may be ordered directly from the
supplier, using a form 9001.

It is recognised that there will be instances when police are deployed
within HM Prisons. When this occurs, any decisions relating to the
carriage of CS incapacitating sprays will be made by 'Gold' for the event.

Responsibilities

The responsibility for ownership and approval of this SOP is with the
Commander, Central Operations.

The responsibility for the implementation of this policy is with OCU
commanders and all supervisors.

The policy is owned by the Public Order Strategic Committee and is to be
reviewed by the Officer Safety Policy Unit.

6. Information related to training literature for the use of force,
Personal Management Model, Restraints and escorts, Search techniques, use
of handcuffs, use of Batons, use of CS Spray, Take downs and restraints,
Ground defence weapon, Retention, Strikes, Role play (which may/may not
involve a handcuffing
scenario)

6.1 Please find below the MPS Standard Operating Procedure for Officer
Safety Training:

Introduction

These revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) support the Officer
Safety Training (OST) Policy.

Application

This SOP is effective from the date of this notice.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family
and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPA must be aware
of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS SOPs and associated
procedures. However, this SOP applies in particular to officers and staff
in the following roles:
" All Police Officers
" All Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary
" All Police Community Support Officers
" All Designated Detention Officers
" All identified Police Staff

SOP details

Officer Safety Training

All student constables receive an Officer Safety Foundation input during
their initial training. They will receive a further Officer Safety input
during their Street Duties or Initial Police Leaning Development
Programme, delivered by local Officer Safety Trainers. This local
training should be delivered shortly after the completion of stage II
training, usually between weeks 28-31.

New members of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary, Police Community
Support Officers, Designated Detention Officers and identified Police
Staff will also receive an Officer Safety Foundation input. Following the
successful completion of this training they will come under the Officer
Safety Refresher Training programme, which detailed below.

All police officers below the rank of superintendent (uniform and plain
clothes) and all operational members of the Metropolitan Special
Constabulary will receive a minimum of 12 hours' Officer Safety Refresher
Training each year. Officers of superintendent rank and above are
encouraged to attend training, especially if they are frequently employed
in operational roles.

The training delivery is counted over a calendar year (i.e. from the 1st
January to the 31st of December). The training should be delivered over 2
x 1 day (6 hours) training sessions. The first session should be
delivered between January and June and the second delivered between July
and December.

Police Community Support Officers, Designated Detention Officers and
members of Police Staff identified as being at risk will receive a minimum
of 6 hours Personal Safety Training each calendar year. There are no
general exemptions to this policy.

When an officer or relevant member of staff is not currently Officer
Safety trained, the question of whether they should be employed in an
operational role must be considered and documented. Decisions in this
respect will take into account the date the individual last received
training, the likely date of their refresher training and the nature of
the risks inherent to their particular role. In any event, an officer who
has not attended training for the preceding 2 years or more must complete
a "Super Refresher Course" and any mandatory OST inputs missed during
their absence. CO11 can advise on this issue.

Officers who transfer into the MPS will receive 12 hours' Officer Safety
Training during their initial HR induction course. On the successful
completion of this course, officers may receive their equipment and join
their existing cycle of OCU training.

Delivery of training

Only currently authorised Officer Safety Trainers will deliver OST. This
will include tactics, equipment, good practice, policy, legislation and
medical implications. To ensure a corporate approach, OCU (OST) trainers
will deliver a prescribed syllabus, published by CO11, based on structured
learning and relevant development issues. Any remaining training time may
be used to address any local OST issues, with the prior agreement of CO11.

During training, each person's competence to use the equipment and
techniques specified by CO11 will be checked and certified by the OCU
Officer Safety Trainer. CO11 will provide all necessary training material
during Trainer Development Courses. OCU commanders are encouraged to
allow their trainers a reasonable amount of time to prepare for their
training sessions.

Failure to attend training

Failure to attend and participate in all aspects of the training, without
authority or reasonable excuse, may amount to a discipline offence and a
breach of the individual's legal obligation under Health and Safety law.
Such failure must be brought to the attention of the OCU commander for
action to be considered.

Failure to reach an acceptable standard

Individuals who fail to reach the required competency level should be
given as much support as is practicable to help ensure that they reach
this standard. CO11 can advise on this issue.

Medically unfit to train

Individuals fit for operational duty ought to be able to participate in
OST. Prior to training, trainers should ask their students if they have
any injury, condition or illness that may preclude them from taking part
(a reasonable degree of robustness is expected of the individual). In the
first instance, the Officer Safety Trainer should explore the possibility
of tailoring the individual's OST in order to meet safely the competency
requirement. However, this may not be appropriate for some individuals.
Such individuals will be referred to their line manager and will not take
part in the training. The advice and support of CO11 and Occupational
Health should be obtained, where necessary.

Training of OCU Trainers

All OCU Officer Safety Trainers must successfully complete an initial
2-day pre-assessment course and a subsequent 15-day Foundation Course.
This course is designed to enhance general training skills and equip the
trainer with the necessary knowledge to enable them to deliver OST to OCU
staff. Courses are allocated to OCUs using an agreed formula. CO11 can
advise OCUs as to what selection criteria should be applied to candidates
seeking nomination for a Foundation Course. However, the progressive
development of OST has led to a change in focus from a purely physical
discipline to that of facilitation and discussion. It is recommended,
therefore, that nominated staff have prior experience in this area. All
nominees must have a current OST and Emergency Life Support qualification
and required to show evidence that they have passed a MPS fitness test to
at least the recruit entry level within the previous 12 months.

The course is based upon a pass/fail qualification. Details of course
content and application criteria are available from CO11. Once qualified,
each trainer is required to attend 3 Development training sessions between
1st January and the 31st of December each year where new information will
be introduced and his or her competence will be tested and certified.
Each Development training session is allocated a code number for record
keeping purposes. OCU trainers will lose their training qualification if
they do not maintain their Development training or, without good reason,
fail to deliver a minimum of 4 OCU training courses per year.

Nominated trainers who fail to reach the required standard will be given
as much support as practicable by CO11 in order to achieve competency.
Trainers who fail to attend Development training without good reason will
have their qualification withdrawn. OCU commanders will be notified in
these circumstances.

Records

Experience has highlighted the importance of maintaining accurate records
of OST delivered to individuals and, where appropriate, the equipment
issued. OCU Personnel Managers are responsible for ensuring that
up-to-date training records are maintained.

Monitoring

In order to meet Health and Safety requirements, OCU commanders are
responsible for the Officer Safety training delivered to their staff.

The monitoring of both the quantity and quality is an important element of
OST. This holistic approach may include visiting personnel and processes
outside the particular lesson.

It is clear that such training has an effect on the policing style not
only of the local area, but the MPS as a whole. It is essential that a
proper monitoring system be in place to ensure that all identified staff
receives the appropriate level of training each year. CO11's monitoring
of Officer Safety training will be carried out as follows:
" OCUs are responsible for informing CO11 of their OST schedule
" CO11 will then endeavour to visit each OCU at least once a year
" CO11 will provide support and advice, where necessary, to help
ensure corporate standards
" At the conclusion of the visit, CO11 will provide the OCU
commander with a monitoring report

Personal Safety Training for partnership agencies

Periodically, the MPS receives requests for personal safety training from
partnership agencies. Authorised Officer Safety trainers may deliver the
following training once the written agreement of their OCU commander has
been received:
" Personal Safety Model
" Tactical Communication
" Use of Force
" Stance and Movement
" Self Defence Empty Hand Strikes and Releases
" Medical Implications

Prior to the commencement of the training, relevant health and safety
checks should be undertaken to ensure both the suitability of the venue
and the appropriateness of the training in relation to individual
students. An authorised warm-up should be completed prior to the
commencement of physical training.

The above syllabus may be tailored to meet the needs of the particular
organisation. However, the training and its delivery must conform to the
Officer Safety Manual, corporate risk assessments and Standard Operation
Procedures. The Officer Safety Unit can advise on this issue.

Officer Safety trainers should ensure that each non-MPS student completes
an indemnity form in order to help limit MPS liability. Indemnity forms
can be downloaded from the template situated at the end of this document.
Officer Safety trainers should also create a written record of the date,
time, location, personnel and content of the training delivered, which
should be retained for 6 years for litigious purposes. All accidents
(that is unplanned events undertaken by police staff that result in
physical harm) should be reported via MetAIR.

Responsibilities

The responsibility for ownership and approval of this SOP is with the
Commander, Central Operations.

The responsibility for the implementation of this policy is with OCU
commanders and all supervisors.

The policy is owned by the Public Order Strategic Committee and is to be
reviewed by the Officer Safety Policy Unit.

6.2 Please find below the MPS Standard Operating Procedure for Officer
Safety :

Introduction

Responsibility for all Officer Safety issues, policy and training became
part of the Public Order Policy Portfolio in January 1997. On behalf of
Assistant Commissioner Central Operations, CO11 Public Order Operational
Command Unit's (OCU) Officer Safety Unit is responsible for the
development of policy and Service level training in relation to these
matters.
In recent years, there have been a number of significant developments in
relation to Officer Safety and these have resulted in various notices and
other publications.

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) supersedes all previous notices in
relation to Officer Safety policy, training and equipment.

Application

This SOP applies with immediate effect. All police officers and police
staff, including the extended police family and those working voluntarily
or under contract to the MPA must be aware of, and comply with, all
relevant MPS Officer Safety SOPs and associated procedures. However, this
SOP applies in particular to officers and staff in the following roles:

" All Police Officer
" All Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary
" All Police Community Support Officers
" All Designated Detention Officers
" All Police Staff identified at risk through appropriate risk
assessment

Purpose
By virtue of the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, police officers are
regarded as "employees" for the purposes of the Health and Safety Act
1974. Officer Safety policies form a significant part of the control
measures required under this legislation that help to ensure safe working
practices for police staff, particularly when facing violent or
potentially violent situations. Individuals are under a legal obligation
to co-operate with their managers in this respect. Therefore, any failure
to comply with instructions relating to these policies may result in
disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

Scope
The Officer Safety Manual reflects the current needs of MPS staff. As
changes to tactics and training occur, amendments and additional sections
will be introduced and managed by the Officer Safety Unit. This is to
ensure that all staff have access to the latest training material, advice
and guidance.

OCU Officer Safety trainers will adhere to the content of Officer Safety
Manual and will not introduce additional material without prior agreement
of the Officer Safety Unit.

Policy Statement

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has seen considerable developments
in Officer Safety Training in recent times. Advancement in technology,
medical knowledge and legal advice have helped shape an Officer Safety
Training package designed to meet the complex and ever-increasing demands
of policing London in the 21st Century.

Since such advancements have often been in reaction to human tragedy or
following the introduction of new equipment, it is understandable that the
initial emphasis has centred upon the training of physical tactics.
However, we must continue to recognise that talking and listening is
equally important as the use of force. Proper and effective communication
is an option that can often reduce hostility and resolve conflict.
Managing conflict through tactical communication is a central theme of
this policy.

The MPS Officer Safety Manual contains instructions and guidance, which
reflect the national position of personal safety. It has been designed
for the guidance of MPS staff and forms the basis for MPS Officer Safety
Training. The techniques included in the manual are not exhaustive.
Rather, they represent a range of tactical options, selected to
accommodate individuals of varying physical abilities, which are effective
and relatively simple to use. If individuals employ techniques that are
not covered, then, as with all uses of force, they may need to account for
their actions in order to show that what they did was proportionate, legal
and necessary in the circumstances.
Benefits

Frequent and structured Officer Safety Training is vital in order to keep
MPS staff informed of changes and to ensure their competence in the use of
equipment and techniques. Officer Safety Training and polices continue to
provide MPS staff with excellent support and guidance to provide continued
professionalism, competence and confidence in serving the people of
London.
Responsibilities

The responsibility for ownership and approval of this SOP is with the
Commander, Central Operations.

The responsibility for the implementation of this policy is with OCU
commanders and all supervisors.

The policy is owned by the Public Order Strategic Committee and is to be
reviewed by the Officer Safety Policy Unit.

7. ADDITIONAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

Section 16 of the Act places a duty upon a public authority to provide
advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the
authority to do so. Please find attached three links to the MPS
publication scheme concerning officer safety training policy:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

8. IN CONCLUSION

I hope the explanation I have provided has shed some light on why the MPS
originally engaged exemptions and consequently have found it possible to
now provide the information you had requested from the Standard Operating
Procedures.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 02071613605 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
Quality and Assurance Advisor
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you very much for the information provided, it has been of some use to the purposes I required this information.

Whilst I am sure the ICO would require further disclosure, that already disclosed suits my needs, I will not be taking this request further.

Once again thank you for amending your decision on review.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Purdy

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org