星空传媒

These may seem like reasonably sensible definitions, but they鈥檙e by no means watertight.

For the purposes of this discourse, let鈥檚 take the term 鈥榩olice鈥� to cover all the usual county constabularies, the Metropolitan Police Service, the City of London Police and the 鈥榩rivate鈥� police forces (such as the British Transport Police and the Parks Police). We will not include those other organisations which have some type of public authority.

Attempting to clearly define 鈥榗orporate security鈥� is also pretty difficult. There are instances of private sector security officers policing public areas such as shopping precincts and industrial estates, offices, building sites, hospitals and colleges. However, the definition we鈥檒l use is that which centres on the word 鈥榗orporate鈥� rather than 鈥榩rivate鈥� security. In his 1986 book 鈥楨ffective Security Management鈥�, Charles Sennewald provides a strict definition of the term. 鈥淎lthough the word 鈥榗orporate鈥� is sometimes used to describe a firm鈥檚 central authority, the word more accurately refers to that small holding organisation that owns a number of firms.鈥�

Although this provides a very precise definition it may be a little too narrow. Sennewald observed that the term 鈥榗orporate鈥� is sometimes used to describe a company鈥檚 central authority. This definition would exclude private security firms contracted to provide services to the public, focusing instead on a firm鈥檚 internal security organisation designed to protect the assets needed to fulfil its business objectives. That鈥檚 clear enough for what鈥檚 being discussed here.

Responsibilities and functions
The role of the police in England and Wales is not clearly defined in English law, and as such a number of definitions have emerged. After several riots in the early 1980s, for example, the Association of Chief Police Officers publicised its 鈥楽tatement of Common Purposes and Values鈥� (which reads: 鈥楾he purpose of the police service is to uphold the law firmly and fairly. To prevent crime. To pursue and bring to justice those who break the law. To keep The Queen鈥檚 Peace. To protect, help and reassure the community 鈥� and to be seen to do all of this with integrity and sound judgement.鈥�

The responsibilities of the 鈥榩rivate鈥� police forces are more tightly defined to take into consideration their more limited jurisdiction. The aim of the Ministry of Defence Police, for example, is 鈥榯o provide effective policing of the Defence Estate and Community鈥�.

Such definitions have come from a wide variety of sources over a period of time during which there have been many changes to British policing. However, all of the definitions share similar traits, and help identify four important roles of the police: to keep the peace, protect people and their property, deter crime and detect and pursue offenders when a crime has been committed.

The responsibilities of corporate security personnel could be whatever the company wishes them to be, and depend largely on its business. For example, a bank鈥檚 security officers might 鈥渟erve as a visible deterrent to unlawful activities, such as robbery or unlawful conduct, but do not interfere in any act that could harm themselves or others鈥� (John Fay, 1999). The responsibilities of a hotel security officer might involve 鈥渄etecting safety hazards, deterring objectionable and unlawful behaviour and keeping the hotel鈥檚 management informed of any security-related incidents through timely and accurate reports鈥�.

Fay鈥檚 final definition, taking in store security officers, would be that they 鈥渄eter crime on the premises, summon the police when the law is broken and protect store employees and customers from harm鈥�.

Again, although these definitions cover very broad environments with different security needs, they nonetheless help to establish some common elements to the responsibilities of corporate security, including deterring crime, protecting people and property and maintaining order. These roles mirror closely those of the police, the one prominent exception being the pursuit of criminals.

The differences between police and corporate security might be more easily distinguished by examining their remit. According to Sennewald: 鈥淭he key difference between public law enforcement and private security is that law enforcement is a product of (and serves) the public sector, whereas private security is a product of (and similarly serves) a given segment of the private sector. Policing, then, is a responsibility of both public and private police. The distinction between the two is found not so much in the organisational responsibility and objectives as it is in the master they serve鈥�.

Arrest, detention and search
The main piece of legislation covering the general powers of arrest, detention and search is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, commonly known as PACE.

Although the focus in this context is detention and search, the power of arrest has a strong bearing on both of these functions. Section 24(4) of PACE gives any person the authority to arrest without warrant anyone who鈥檚 in the act of committing an arrestable offence (or whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence). Section 24(5) also allows any person to arrest without warrant anyone who is guilty of committing an arrestable offence, or whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it. These are the only provisions under PACE which can be exercised by any individual. All further provisions can be used only by the police.

Under Section 24(6) of PACE, a constable may arrest without warrant 鈥� where he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been committed 鈥� anyone whom he or she reasonably suspects to be guilty of the offence.

Section 24(7) further allows a police constable to arrest without warrant anyone who鈥檚 about to commit an arrestable offence, or anyone whom he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence.

Section 25 of PACE gives police officers a general power of arrest for offences which are not arrestable if the officer believes an offence is being (or is going to be) committed and the service of a summons is impractical. It also allows the officer to arrest a person if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that an arrest is necessary to protect the person from harming themselves or others, to prevent loss or damage to property, to stop the unlawful obstruction of the highway or to prevent an offence against public decency.

There are common law provisions which allow both the police and the ordinary citizen to arrest without warrant where a breach of the peace is being committed in the presence of the person making the arrest. Such powers will also allow anyone to make an arrest where they reasonably believe such a breach of the peace will be committed in the future, or where it has been committed and is likely to resume. This power isn鈥檛 restricted to public places, and can be used on private premises where no member of the public is present.

The critical difference between the powers of arrest for the police and corporate security staff is that the police have far broader powers to arrest an individual on suspicion of committing an offence, and before an offence has been committed. Corporate security operatives can only arrest where an offence is being committed or has already taken place. If such an arrest occurs on reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed an offence and is subsequently acquitted, the arrest will be deemed unlawful. Even the common law power to arrest an individual for a breach of the peace requires some evidence that such a breach has happened or is likely to happen.

The powers of detention are also closely regulated by PACE, including the conditions and duration of detention. Section 41 of PACE allows the police to hold an individual for up to 24 hours without charge, and for extended periods beyond that subject to the authorisation of a Superintendent (under Section 42) or a Magistrate (under Sections 43 and 44). The ordinary citizen, however, is required to hand the suspect over to a constable or take them to a police station as soon as they reasonably can do so. Thus, corporate security personnel could detain someone until the police arrived, and could reasonably ask them to account for their actions (but could not detain them while an internal investigation was launched, or during the time when more evidence is obtained).

PACE also gives police officers wide-ranging powers to search an individual and enter their premises to conduct a search of the building as well. Section 1(2) allows a constable to search any person or vehicle 鈥� and anything which is in or on the vehicle 鈥� for stolen or prohibited articles, and to detain persons or vehicles for the purpose of such a search. Section 18 also affords police officers the power to enter and search the premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an arrestable offence in order to search for evidence relating to that offence or indeed a connected offence.

While the police enjoy very broad powers to search people and their property, there are no similar powers which give corporate security or the ordinary citizen permission to search an individual or their premises. However, corporate security may have a form of authority derived by the terms and conditions of an employment contract which an individual signs when joining the company. This can require a given individual to consent to searches being carried out on entry to or exit from company premises as a condition of their employment.

The critical difference between the powers of arrest enjoyed by the police and corporate security staff is that the police have far broader powers to arrest an individual on suspicion of committing an offence, and before an offence has actually been commi

That said, this still doesn鈥檛 give security the power to search without consent. If an individual refuses to submit to a search, they cannot be forced to do so. The only sanction which can be employed against them is a disciplinary action for breach of contract.

Powers of corporate security
In attempting to assess whether or not the powers allocated to corporate security staff are adequate, it鈥檚 necessary to compare their responsibilities to their powers.

Unlike the police, corporate security personnel don鈥檛 enjoy any powers under PACE to arrest an individual before a crime has been committed. Common law powers to arrest an individual for a breach of the peace would allow an arrest to be made before harm has been inflicted either to people or property. These powers can be used on private premises where no member of the public is present, and could give corporate security some power in stopping an offence which hasn鈥檛 yet occurred.

The powers under Sections 24(4) and 24(5) of PACE to make an arrest when an offence is being committed or has already been committed could, in itself, be a deterrent. It鈥檚 difficult to see how the limited powers of detention would help corporate security deter crime, except that they could detain an individual until the police arrived (which may dissuade a potential perpetrator).

Although they have no statutory powers to search an individual, security officers could gain authority from an employment contract where an employee consents to a physical search. This would allow them to conduct searches for prohibited items when employees enter the building, or for stolen property when employees leave the premises.

If any employees were to withdraw their consent, they would have breached their employment contract and be subject to disciplinary procedures.

Section 25 of PACE gives the police a general power of arrest in order to protect people and property, but that provision isn鈥檛 available to anyone else. Security personnel could use their common law powers to arrest an individual for a breach of the peace if they suspected they might hurt a person or their property, but would need some evidence to suggest this might happen. Their powers to detain could be used to contain an individual who was posing a risk to people or property until they could be handed over to the police or escorted from company premises.

Consent to search (as provided in an employment contract) could be used to protect company assets from being stolen, or to prevent prohibited items from being brought on to company premises which might hurt people or property. There are a number of alternative ways in which corporate security might fulfil this responsibility, such as:

• providing a safe and secure working environment including suitable access control, bomb protection and fire protection;
  
• providing staff with good education and training to help them react appropriately in an emergency such that they may safeguard themselves and the company鈥檚 assets;
  
• the provision and maintenance of emergency equipment such as First Aid kits, fire-fighting gear and fire and smoke detectors can limit the damage to people and property caused by a natural or man-made hazard;
  
• a firm disciplinary code 鈥� to prohibit items like offensive weapons, alcohol and controlled substances being brought on to the premises;
  
• good office management 鈥� including regular inventories of supplies and asset marking.

Maintaining order on site
The common law powers to arrest an individual for a breach of the peace provide a general power for corporate security personnel to fulfil this responsibility. However, one of the most effective measures may be the company鈥檚 disciplinary code, which could define acceptable standards of behaviour and punish those who are disruptive and insubordinate.

Powers of detention which could be employed by corporate security are unlikely to be of any use in this area because they only allow an individual to be detained for a limited time until the police arrive 鈥� and certainly couldn鈥檛 be used as a general power to control unruly or disruptive individuals.

One of the most compelling arguments for an increase in power for corporate security is the increase in crime in the workplace. Between 1998 and 2000 alone, instances of violent crime in the workplace rose by 4%. In 1999 there were 604,000 reported victims of violence in the workplace, compared with 472,000 in 1991. Indeed, only recently the Health and Safety Executive has unveiled details of a three-year Home Office programme aimed at tackling the problem (鈥楴ews鈥�, Security Management Today, January 2003, p7).

Fraud is another major problem faced by companies, so too employee theft and attempted breaches of IT and data security. Attrition.org, one of the leading web sites when it comes to monitoring network security, has stated that less than 6% of all IT-related attacks come from people outside of the business.

While the police enjoy wide-ranging powers to tackle crime, corporate security personnel do not 鈥� which may well support the argument for giving the latter greater powers to protect themselves against crime while meeting their obligations to staff and investors.

Any attempt to increase the powers of detention and search would require a commensurate level of oversight to regulate them. If such powers were indeed awarded to corporate security personnel, they would need the same degree of regulatory oversight as proposed for contracted security operatives by the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

A questioning of values
The actual value of the powers of detention and search are questionable.

Home Office statistics show that, in 1999-2000, the police conducted 857,200 searches under PACE, of which only 13% led to an arrest. The power of detention was more fruitful, with 224 warrants being issued for further detention beyond 24 hours resulting in 158 charges (a 鈥榮uccess鈥� level of 71%).

Corporate security faces a very broad scope of crime in the workplace including violence, theft, fraud and computer misuse. The instances of these offences occurring are increasing, and the penalties for companies that don鈥檛 address them can be severe.

These factors alone could be used to justify the introduction of greater powers of detention and search for corporate security to enable a company to protect itself and face up to its responsibilities with respect to both staff and shareholders. That said, there have been instances where such problems have been overcome without the need for greater powers (see panel 鈥楾esco and the Totally Integrated Security System鈥�).

The majority of police time 鈥� and, presumably, that of corporate security departments 鈥� is actually spent keeping the peace and helping people out rather than exercising the powers of detention and search. The suggestion here is that corporate security has little need for greater powers.

Security is rather more of an art than a science. It benefits more by using common sense, sound judgement, imagination and creativity to create a proportionate response than the rigid application of rules, regulations and laws.