Torture and Control and Restraint

L

littlewoman

Longterm Registered User
Every now and then I hear of a trainer or some employer saying that you can't use pain compliance when restraining someone because its torture.

I've just found the definition of torture in the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed,
or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

I can't see any of those reasons as being applicable to control and restraint, so next time anyone hears someone trying to suggest that pain compliance is torture I suggest they refer them to this definition.
 
Reasonable, Absolutely Necessary, Minimal and Proportionate. Covered in legislation by Common Law (self defence), Criminal Law Act (prevent crime, arrest, assisting others making arrest) and PACE (used to enforce a PACE power, citizens power of arrest Section 24a)... Direct lifts from National Decision Model.
 
satellitium said:
Reasonable, Absolutely Necessary, Minimal and Proportionate. Covered in legislation by Common Law (self defence), Criminal Law Act (prevent crime, arrest, assisting others making arrest) and PACE (used to enforce a PACE power, citizens power of arrest Section 24a)... Direct lifts from National Decision Model.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in law does it say anything about "minimal", in fact the law accepts that it is impossible to exactly judge the amount of force needed, which means that "minimal" is something that you can't judge.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76 subsection 7
“that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.”
 
The torture - control and restraint thing it seems has become as common as the myth of 'citizens arrest' and / or 'don't arrest someone, detain them' in security training.
 
littlewoman said:
Nowhere in law does it say anything about "minimal", in fact the law accepts that it is impossible to exactly judge the amount of force needed, which means that "minimal" is something that you can't judge.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76 subsection 7
“that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.”
Click to expand...

I was always taught reasonable, proportionate and necessary, but as I said, that was a direct lift from the national decision model.
 
Nowhere in law does it say anything about "minimal", in fact the law accepts that it is impossible to exactly judge the amount of force needed, which means that "minimal" is something that you can't judge.

Beg to differ on this comment, due to the fact that under current sentencing guidelines offences such as street robbery, robbery of small businesses ect were the type and nature of activity 'includes the threat or use of minimal force and removal of property' an adult can be sentenced from 12 months to 3 years.

Reasonable, Absolutely Necessary, Minimal and Proportionate

This is common wording in most if not all physical intervention / behaviour policies that are in use in schools who have learners with severe behavioural difficulties as well as HMP.
 
Last edited:
larpy said:
Nowhere in law does it say anything about "minimal", in fact the law accepts that it is impossible to exactly judge the amount of force needed, which means that "minimal" is something that you can't judge.

Beg to differ on this comment, due to the fact that under current sentencing guidelines offences such as street robbery, robbery of small businesses ect were the type and nature of activity 'includes the threat or use of minimal force and removal of property' an adult can be sentenced from 12 months to 3 years.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have been more precise, I'm sure that every word in the English language is used somewhere in legislation, what I meant was the law concerning the legal use of force.
 
larpy said:
Nowhere in law does it say anything about "minimal", in fact the law accepts that it is impossible to exactly judge the amount of force needed, which means that "minimal" is something that you can't judge.

Beg to differ on this comment, due to the fact that under current sentencing guidelines offences such as street robbery, robbery of small businesses ect were the type and nature of activity 'includes the threat or use of minimal force and removal of property' an adult can be sentenced from 12 months to 3 years.

Reasonable, Absolutely Necessary, Minimal and Proportionate

This is common wording in most if not all physical intervention / behaviour policies that are in use in schools who have learners with severe behavioural difficulties as well as HMP.
Click to expand...

Sentencing guidelines are not the law though.

While one of the questions asked of someone who has utilised force is was there anything less they could have done and achieved a favourable outcome, as Littlewoman states, S.76 of the CJ&I Act says that so long as using force for a legitimate purpose (or purpose we believe according to the facts known to us at the time (from another piece of common law)) we're not expected to get it bang on. The law gives us that wobble room. That aspect of it was actually taken from common law and put into statutes in order to enforce the principle to our benefit.

Now in guidelines toward the formal application of controlling or restraint techniques yes, they always say you should only use the minimum force you need to in order to achieve your goal - that is best practise; it is not law, and it is of course law that we would be judged against.
 
I was trying to put across the point that the word minimal is in fact used in law when examining the amount of force that has been used, the example I used was to highlight the nature of activity of that offence, in this case the 'threat or use of minimal force and removal of property', as it seems to be quite clear that minimal can be judged.
 
I'm just bumping this because I got this on my upskilling course. "If you're putting a wrist lock on someone and hurting them whilst telling them to stop struggling, you're using pain to make them comply, that's torture"
I couldn't remember the exact definition, and had got to the point where I just wanted the tick in the box and get out of there. Next time I'm on a course I'm going to print out this and take it with me. I'm also trying to track down all the bits in legislation that mention "torture". The other thing I need to argue is the law on searching, unfortunately there isn't one as all searches are done with consent so I can't print out any bit of law that says you can put your hand in a bag whilst searching.
 
littlewoman ... are you having a problem with your ex-husband or something? :-)

i don't think a normal wristlock quite counts as torture. i'll tell you why. it only puts pain on the subject if they struggle. if they comply, there is minimal pain. BUT you do need to be careful with all of the locks on peoples' joints - because if you overdo them you can really do some serious damage. so it's like everything else - it requires some practice and skill. adjust the pressure on the lock to what is required to do the job, but no more.

there are a couple of things to be careful about.

1. some people have poor flexibility. they are not able to flex their bodies to remove pain from locks and holds. they can even fall over while you are applying thecontrol techniques. this can do really serious damage. so watch out if the person seems clumsy or off-balance. they might actually need assitance from you to stay upright (unless you actually want them on the ground).

2. or the reverse is true. some people are agile and amazingly flexible. they can actually twist out of the joint lock you are applying - usually very quickly. so be ready with a backup move.

3. i'm sure you know this. but be careful with headlocks and moves which reduce blood flow in the carotid arteries of the neck. it is used by the police to force a perpetrator into temporary unconsciousness. But when people get older, typically over 40 years old, those arteries lose flexibility in their walls. blood flow might not return if you collapse them under serious pressure - resulting in brain damage. so techniques involving head locks should be applied more on younger subjects, and carefully if you do them.

cheers,
KL
 
Back
Top