The sound of Sirens? - Trauma caused through Police work and the Cambridge University 2022 report, a watershed moment?

Introduction

It’s right to say that all stress at work claims turn on their own facts. All of them are as unique as the people involved.

That said, there is one class of stress at work claims, namely those presented by police officers that are at times, completely distinct in the nature of the stresses caused to the Claimant from Claimants in the private sector.?

Practitioners are not required to consider solely consider the effects of being overworked for example, but the consequences of willingly putting yourself in harms way and being exposed on a near daily basis to the type of harrowing experiences that many of us cannot begin to imagine.?

The 2022 Cambridge University report?

So what can be done? Well, in October 2022, A nationwide study of 12,248 police officers revealed a number of interesting findings, that appear to have fallen off the radar, or at least of ready remembrance. The study prepared by the University of Cambridge warrants reading, but in microcosm, some of the more illuminating findings were;

1. A previous study led by Cambridge University in 2018 suggested that close to one in five officers have symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or complex PTSD (C-PTSD). That’s 20% of the police force;
2. These number appear to have risen in the 2022 study although in certain forces and in certain lines of work, this was greater
3. The trauma detailed by officers with probable levels of Complex PTSD included dealing with fatal car accidents, rapes, homicides, suicides and drug overdoses;
4. Exposure to physical violence made little difference to rates of Complex PTSD, nor did long working hours, researchers found;
5. We know there are are over 140,000 full time police officers in the UK, so that’s about 28,000 people;

An issue of note in my opinion, was that the report identified that that trauma-related mental disorders were “exacerbated by poor working conditions”, such as too little time given to officers for work and recuperation, and a lack of support dealing with difficult situations and the aftermath of the same. This appears to be uncontroversial and applying empathy, is entirely understandable.?

The statistics of the report showed that a troubling 13,263 officers were absent due to stress, depression, anxiety or PTSD in the past financial year, at the time of its commission, compared with 8,450 the year before. It’s clear the indices of poor mental health associated with police work are rising at a troubling rate.?

The cause??

But why? Professor Burchell sets out in the report that;

“severe austerity cuts since 2010 leading to a marked reduction in police numbers without a decrease in the demands of the job inevitably creates more time pressure for remaining officers… Single-crewing, shift work and fewer resources mean that time for encouraging words between colleagues or space for officers to acknowledge their traumatic experiences are few and far between.”

To put this into a real context, the fall in officer numbers was a result of UK-wide?funding cuts with police expenditure falling from 19.3 billion in 2009/10 to 16.35 billion by 2013/14. However, of the officers who where interviewed, and felt supported by their colleagues, had around half the rates of PTSD as to the national average for policing staff.?

How do we apply this?

Within the context of the duty of care owed to police officers in the execution of their duties, this appears to highlight the intense need for such police officers to be supported in their roles, be that through occupational health departments, time to decompress following dealing with distressing events, or it seems even colleagues to speak to.?

Within the context of how the duty of care operates (in certain cases) is the need to ask, and resolve the following question. “Is there now a clear statistical rationale that support to a police officer should be provided following exposure to one of the above traumatic events?”. It seems that the point is debatable but could, in the right factual circumstances have potency and establish not only foresight of injury, but pathways to breach of duty.?

When we consider the ratio of?Melville v Home Office?[2005] EWCA Civ 06??which acknowledged that some types of work are “inherently stressful” and that systems need to be in place to deal with the consequences of the same, how does this duty interact with something as simple and straightforward as having colleagues available to help support a Claimant, or ensuring a Claimant has time to decompress??

Since in such cases where?a Defendant has foreseen the possibility of injury through a Claimants work the Claimant does not need to (and logically cannot) show signs of injury before an injurious event takes place, how can the Cambridge study be applied?

If systems were in place, were adequate and not applied the answer is straightforward, lability attaches to the Defendant. But can there now be an argument that a period of enforced leave following one of the above described traumatic events, or a mandatory de briefing is now required??

The co-author of the report, a Dr Jessica Miller opined that

“The police forces reporting the best working conditions had much lower rates of PTSD. Modest investments to improve their working conditions could see significant reductions in psychological problems among police officers.”

Conclusion?

So where does this leave us? Well, as a starting point, let’s consider what the study shows.

Firstly its based on sizeable body of officers so has more than a little gravitas. It shows a marked increase in poor mental health amongst the police force, it appears caused by the work they undertake and a recognition that there are straightforward and practical steps that when taken, reduce the risk of injury.?

Secondly when we consider the?Judgment of?Hale LJ?in?Hatton v Sutherland?[2002] P.I.Q.R P241 C.A?specifically those focused on breach of duty?

1. ?“To trigger a duty to take steps, the indications of impending harm to health arising from stress at work must be plain enough for any reasonable employer to realise that he should do something about it” (paragraph 31)
2. “The size and scope of the employer's operation, its resources and the demands it faces are relevant in deciding what is reasonable; these include the interests of other employees and the need to treat them fairly, for example, in any redistribution of duties” (paragraph 33)”.
3. “An employer can only reasonably be expected to take steps which are likely to do some good: the court is likely to need expert evidence on this” (paragraph 34).

It appears that putting aside the issue of foresight, there is now an emerging body of reliable statistical data that identifies that makes a compelling argument that police officers, after engaging in a distressing and harrowing events, need to be provided with support and after care in any event.

The question of what form such intervention takes is debatable, but the need for it in my opinion, when the University of Cambridge report is considered, is beginning to appear uncontroversial. Officers should be not be required to move straight onto the next matter and be re exposed to trauma, at least till they have had time to decompress and seek support.?

One of the areas I for one would be interested to consider is how social workers, ambulance crews and firefighters are reacting to such traumas and the indices of ill health in relation to the same. Are there clear similarities in between the need for decompression and support from colleagues?

I am troubled, but not surprised by the conclusion of?Professor Burchell that the impact austerity measured has had on the mental health of Police Officers, such concerned being articulated by unions and representative bodies since 2010.?

When the most recent HSE report into stress at work, published in November 2022 are considered that found that;

1. 914,000 workers were suffering from work-related stress, depression or anxiety (new or long-standing) in 2021/22 (see the Labour Force Survey (LFS));
2. That this was reflective of prevalence rate of 2,750 per 100,000 workers

The the greater level of stress related illness in the police force, and the danger of the same been caused, is a pernicious problem what needs to be addressed.?It is so much higher than the general work forces at large, that surely steps must be taken, and taken quickly.

It will be interesting to see how, and if the above statistic are applied in litigation going forward, and how the Courts will adapt to what is now known and published, when dealing with the consequences of harm caused to those who work to protect us.?