PHYSICAL INTERVENTION FOR CPO'S

UNIT 1 - REQUIREMENTS OF PROVIDING CLEAR AND CONCISE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PRINCIPAL AND TEAM MEMBERS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Situations where the Principal’s personal safety is likely to be compromised:

The personal safety of a Principal can be compromised in various situations where potential risks or threats are present some of these include:

• Obsessive behaviour from an individual
• Unusual behaviour in close proximity to the Principal
• Potential hostile surveillance and communication focused on the Principal
• Chaos events with erratic behaviours
• Identification of a weapon or suspicious package
• Known or identified threats becoming activated

Situations that do not compromise safety but are likely to cause embarrassment or delays to the Principal’s schedule:

While some situations may not compromise the safety of the Principal, they can still be embarrassing or cause delays to the Principal's schedule some of these situations include:

• Offensive or inappropriate behaviour or conversation
• Non-responsive individuals during conversations
• Non-reciprocal holds or embraces
• Unplanned high-pressure media interactions
• Blocking or disruption of planned routes

The importance of using agreed ‘intervention words’ and ‘non-verbal cues’ between the Principal and team:

Agreed intervention words, phrases or non-verbal cues between the Principal and their close protection team allows either to move out of a situation or to move in an emergency

Intervention words or non-verbal cues allow:

• Covert communication method
• Support for successful task execution
• Empowerment of the Principal
• Communication in challenging situations

The implications of ineffective communication in high-risk situations:

In high-risk situations, ineffective communication can have serious implications for the safety, security, and success of the operation

Ineffective communication can lead to:

• Embarrassment for the Principal or team
• Task failure
• Serious harm to the Principal or team members through non-responsive teamwork
• Confusion of requirements
• Delay in response

UNIT 2 - RESPONDING TO A CHANGE IN OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS FROM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TO EMERGENCY OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

Triggering a change of operational conditions:

In an emergency the Team Leader can change the operational conditions from SOP’s to EOP’s using a variety of tactics including:

• Intervention words or non-verbal cues
• Overtly
• Covertly
• Use of Radio communication

The considerations when responding to heightened threat, risk, or incidents:

When responding to heightened threats, risks, or incidents in a security operation, several considerations and actions need to be taken to ensure the safety and security of the Principal and the protection team some of these might include:

• Second in command (2IC) change of responsibilities
• Personal escort section (PES) and security advance party (SAP) change of responsibilities
• Increased readiness of drivers and vehicles
• Increased readiness of medics
• Preparation of support resources
• Change of environment (safe rooms)
• Extraction of the Principal
• Contraction of protective layers/circles
• Diversion of security advance party (SAP)
• Calling in security advance party (SAP) for support
• From within protective layers
• Possible contact with third parties (emergency services, other CP teams)
• Communication with wider close protection team (control room, rapid response team)

UNIT 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLOSE PROTECTION TEAM WHEN THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE PRINCIPAL

The priorities for each role in the immediate close protection team when a physical threat is realised:

In a close protection team, each role has specific priorities and responsibilities when a physical threat is realised.

Personal Escort Section (PES):

• Contraction of protective layers/circle
• Removal of persons from within the layers:
• Neutralising immediate threat
• Separating threat from Principal
• Clearing extraction route
• Creating time for the Principal protection officer (PPO) to operate

Security Advance Party (SAP):

• Reconnaissance and readiness of extraction location or transport
• Advance or abort commands
• Potential support to PES and PPO

UNIT 4 - NARROWING THE CONCENTRIC LAYERS OF PROTECTION WHEN MANAGING AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE PRINCIPAL

The purpose of narrowing the concentric layers of protection for a Principal:

Tightening the outer layer of protection during an emergency is important for these reasons:

• To increase the overall body protection of the Principal
• To reduce response times to the source of the threat
• Create a safe area around the Principal
• To shield the Principal and Principal protection officer (PPO) from attacks
• Creates a psychological barrier for the potential assailant which may cause them to abort

The considerations of the PES team members within a protective formation:

The Personal Escort Section (PES) team have various roles to play during an emergency such as:

• To divert or proportionately remove hostile parties
• To proportionately and legally remove/restrain hostile parties
• To dynamically assess the situation for additional threats
• To assist with the evacuation of the Principal or restore normality
• To assist with the possible detention of an individual

The considerations of the PPO within a protective formation:

The Personal Protection Officer is the final line of defence to the Principal, their role is:

• To assess the threat and capability of the Personal Escort Section (PES) to defend the outer layer of protection
• To shield the Principal and remove them from the threat as part of the evacuation process
• To make informed decisions based on information received from PES, own, or other team members
• Restoration of normality
• Assessing the situation, neutralising threats who have entered the personal space of the Principal

UNIT 5 - IMPLICATIONS OF COMMON AND CRIMINAL LAW WHEN USING FORCE ON ANOTHER PERSON

The requirements of common law to justify the use of force towards another person:

• Honestly held belief
• Imminent danger
• Force reasonable in the circumstances
• To avert the danger (no more than is required)

The requirements of criminal law to justify the use of force towards another person:

• Reasonable
• Necessary
• Justifiable
• Proportionate
• Legal
• Accountable

The importance of only using physical intervention skills as a last resort:

The importance of using physical intervention skills as a last resort in close protection operations cannot be overstated, using excessive force can cause:

• Negative media (professional and social)
• Damage to reputation (Principal and CP team)
• Risk of harm to all parties
• Accountable to a court of law
• Excessive force may result in criminal conviction, loss of license, and fines

UNIT 6 - POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES TO USING PHYSICAL INTERVENTION SKILLS IN A CLOSE PROTECTION ENVIRONMENT

Alternative methods of protecting a Principal from assault which do not involve physical contact with others:

Protecting a Principal from assault without physical contact involves a range of non-violent strategies and communication techniques that prioritise de-escalation and prevention these include:

• Narrowing the concentric layers of protection to create a psychological deterrent
• Effective conflict management communication
• Distraction techniques
• Early recognition of escalating risk and removal of the Principal
• Effective screening of individuals allowed into proximity of the Principal where possible
• Threat avoidance
• Effective eye contact with the threat
• Assertive communication
• Ask the threat to desist (low-level threat e.g., prolonged handshake or clinging to Principal)

UNIT 7 - ASSOCIATED THREATS AS A RESULT OF AN ATTEMPTED ASSAULT OR UNWARRANTED ATTENTION TOWARDS A PRINCIPAL

Secondary potential threats to the Principal and team:

Identifying secondary potential threats to the Principal and the protection team is crucial for ensuring comprehensive security and mitigating risks effectively, some of these threats could include:

• Additional hostile individuals
• Dry run (to analyse CP team responses)
• Chaos trigger to separate and weaken the CP team
• Distraction technique
• Extraction location may be compromised
• Negative publicity stunt
• Loss of CP team members (injury or incapacitation)

UNIT 8 - APPLYING PHYSICAL INTERVENTION SKILLS IN A JUSTIFIABLE, ETHICAL, AND PROFESSIONAL MANNER

Legal, medical, and ethical implications of physical interventions within the context and boundaries of UK legislation:

Context:

• Reasonable force
• Proportionate force to the situation
• Necessary action
• Justifiable

Boundaries

• Imminent attack
• Force only used as a last resort
• Minimum duration required
• Minimum force required
• Avert the danger
• Escalate and deescalate in proportion to threat

Medical:

• Potential injuries to operative and individual depending on the techniques

Ethical:

• Consideration if the individual may be in mental crisis and require post incident support
• Consideration if the intervention can be delayed or deferred to another person to apply

Public perceptions:

• Third party (public) view of the intervention