Agenda item

A paper was presented to the Committee providing an update on the use of spit bite guards, six months after their introduction in custody.

GMP had been piloting the use of spit guards in its custody environment from June 2019 and had recorded eight deployments to date. The introduction had taken place after sufficient staff in custody; both Sergeants and Custody Detention Officers had been trained in their use. Following each use in a custody environment, there was a requirement for the Sergeant to submit an adverse incident form, which provided an overview of the incident allowing it to be reviewed with regards to proportionality and legality.

Observations included:

• Approximately 20,000 people had been through custody in the six months the trial had been in operation – only utilising the spit guard eight times in that period made for a very small sample size.
• There had been no availability or stock issues at any of the eight custody sites in the trial, nor any shortage of trained officers available (though the training process would continue long-term).
• Seven of the eight incidents involved a level of drink and/or drug intoxication.
• There was a mix of ethnicity and on two of the eight occasions; the guard had been used on female detainees.
• On two of the eight occasions, the detainees had gone on to receive mental health assessments in custody and were subsequently detained under section two of the Mental Health Act.
• One incident had involve usage on a 16-year-old child – this had raised concerns, however the report on the reasoning behind its use led to satisfaction that the usage was proportional in that case.

Following the successful custody trial period – it was the intention of GMP to continue usage and extend the equipment to all frontline officers to provide them with an approved tactical option in dealing with this type of assault. Recorded assault figures showed increasing trends in this areas and indicated that the majority of these assaults occurred outside of the custody suite at the point of arrest. It was also highlighted that the Police Federation had continued to voice concerns about a vast under-reporting of this type of assault.

The equipment would be rolled out with a specific policy and risk assessment in place that would detail accepted usage. Full training would also be provided to officers during planned self-defence courses. No officer would be issued with the equipment before having fully completed the training programme. Monitoring the use of the equipment would continue via the existing ‘Use of Force’ forms.

Comments and Questions

Committee Members asked if the use of the guards had an impact upon the demeanour of the prisoner. Had it calmed then? Or instead made them liable to react more violently?

It was advised that given the sample size of eight people no clear overall view could be formed, as it had resulted in various types of reaction. A type of guard had been specifically purchased that used a thin mesh substance and reduced levels of disorientation.

Committee members asked if there were any particular ‘red flags’ that would lead to questioning of usage – and whether custody suite footage was seen as part of the review of usage.

It was advised that a red flag would be any significant increase in usage in a particular location and extremes in frequency of usage between different boroughs. There would also be concerns about frequency of usage on juveniles and those with vulnerability issues. It was advised that CCTV footage was retained for over a month and any events of this type in custody suites would result in the footage being recovered and viewed. It would always be emphasised that this was not to be employed as a routine tactic and that any usage must always be fully justifiable upon review.

Committee Members asked how the wider rollout would be communicated to the public, given that there would be increasing public awareness following the force wide introduction.

It was advised that plans were in place around the formation of a communications policy around the usage of guards. The communications used by peer authorities who had already introduced the guards would be benchmarked. Public insight being offered on the training programme in the usage of the guards was an example that may be taken forward in seeking to provide reassurances and ensure full transparency about how they would be used.

A debate took place around usage in situations of heightened intensity – for example if they were used in a situation where it could escalate the reaction of members of the public/gang members. It was agreed that there would be situations requiring careful judgement. On the one side, the message was important to emphasise that it was never acceptable for people to spit in the face of an officer, but equally it was understood that there were circumstances where the perception of this usage, without proper public knowledge, could result in accusations of unnecessary force and result in further tensions. It was agreed that issues around community impact would be important to consider and that it would be a good idea to incorporate it into the training, as outside of the custody suite the officer would be in a less controlled environment and the issues that came with that would be vitally important to consider.

The Chair stated that once a full six-month rollout across the Force had been completed it would be interesting to see a further report back to the Committee. With the report including information such as usage on juveniles; ethnic disparities in usage; usage in police vans and notable incidences of high usage.

It was also stated that if any policies around usage could be brought to the March 2020 meeting of the Committee if available for consideration by that time.

RESOLVED/-

1.      That the 6 month review of the use of spit bite guards in custody be noted by the Committee.

2.      That a 6 month review be prepared for the Committee following the full rollout of spit bite guards across the GMP network.

3.      That any policies formed on the usage of spit bite guards be brought to the March 2020 meeting of the Committee, if available by that time.