Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Bob Swayne has had extensive experience in the building engineering services field for many years, having worked with a number of engineering services consultancies, major UK contractors and PFI consortia, before setting up The Hampden Consultancy in 1993. He speaks with Lawyer Monthly about the issues he faces with the legal profession as an Expert Witness and why construction projects can fall into Court.
Throughout your years of experience as an expert, what common mistakes do clients make when undergoing construction work, which thus has the potential to lead to lawsuits?
From my own experience, a common mistake many clients make is in overlooking the importance of mechanical & electrical engineering services (M&E), relying on either the main contractor or his sub-contractor to undertake the design or even expect unqualified professionals like architects or surveyors to deal with the matter (and which is often outside their particular area of expertise).
Considering that many buildings (including some larger residential properties) are far more complex now than they ever were in respect to things such as heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, heat pumps, solar panels, intelligent lighting, building management systems, bio-mass boilers, etc, it is imperative in my view that clients employ appropriate professionals (even if it means additional professional fees at the outset) because it will ultimately save clients’ money in the longer term.
There are other aspects to consider such as an imperfect brief provided by clients or their project team, inadequate design, poor installation, defective testing & commissioning, the absence of appropriate operation & maintenance documentation, poor maintenance or even a lack of maintenance post-contract!
The main problem seems to be that a lot of clients are not willing to pay fees for building services engineers who can correctly design M&E systems, prepare specifications and provide on-site monitoring of installations to ensure they are undertaken correctly. Employing the right people at the right time always makes good economic sense, never more so than in terms of construction projects. Failure to do so means in my experience that you will expend a lot of money unnecessarily trying to put things right post-contract, monies spent in litigation and expert witness fees that would have been better spent employing appropriate professional expertise at the beginning of a project.
How can clients ensure that they have hired the right person at the outset of a project?
There are a number of professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE), the Association of Consultancy & Engineering (ACE), the Building Services Research & Information Association (BSRIA), the Institution of Engineering & Technology (IET) and if you are dealing with healthcare projects you can also contact The Institute of Healthcare Engineering & Estate Management (IHEEM), all such bodies having lists of experienced people.
It would also be sensible in my view to establish whether the people you have chosen are experienced in dealing with similar projects to that you are proposing to build or refurbish.
When it comes to finding M&E consulting engineers who will act as expert witnesses then the best places to find them is to contact organisations such as the UK Register of Expert Witnesses, the Academy of Experts, the Expert Witness Institute or the National Expert Witness Agency (NEWA) as well as checking any of the legal website online directories, including of course Lawyer Monthly.
You say that buildings are more complex than ever before, can you explain in what way?
There is greater emphasis on energy conservation and the implementation of energy-saving methodology, which requires greater attention to detail in terms of design and specification, particularly in respect to integrated data systems and ‘intelligent’ controls. M&E services are becoming more complex, it is not simply a matter of wiring up a power circuit or connecting up a radiator anymore – clients are now installing air-conditioning, heat pumps, solar panels, bio-mass boilers, ‘intelligent’ controls, building management systems and ‘intelligent’ lighting systems. These are all things which are highly technical to design, install and commission.
All these complex systems were never considered 30 or 40 years ago. When designed, installed or commissioned incorrectly they can cause problems, rather than making life easier which these new components are supposed to do. For instance, currently I am seeing a significant level of complaints regarding heat pumps that are not allegedly saving energy. I believe there are several reasons for this situation namely badly-designed systems, inappropriate applications, poor installations by unqualified or untrained contractors and/or failure to commission systems properly, leading to a situation whereby clients are being led to believe that savings can be made which are actually unachievable. When these savings are not achieved then clients naturally seek redress through the Courts.
How do you have to handle cases in arbitration hearings differently to the Courts?
From my perspective, I treat them all the same, as the requirements for the expert report remain identical and require you to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. I personally don’t handle the cases any differently. I still apply the same attention to detail and endeavour to identify and explain the technical issues clearly so that the arbitrator can understand and reach a satisfactory judgement, hopefully in favour of my client.
What general difficulties do you face as an Expert Witness?
Apart from the common one of late payment of fees by solicitors, other difficulties I face include problems of solicitors issuing general instructions such as “find out what is wrong with the heating system” and then expect a quick answer when in fact the underlying problems may be more complex. For example, underfloor heating systems will often require a thermographic survey to be undertaken if only to establish functionality, namely that the heating circuits are in the right places and are in fact working. This obviously takes time and costs money and which many clients seem to think this is a luxury but expert witnesses are not blessed with X-ray vision and so thermographic surveys are a necessity.
Frequently, the paucity of specific information within Operation & Maintenance manuals or indeed a complete lack of the manuals altogether makes my work very difficult. Some manuals contain nothing more than sales brochures, with no design criteria or detailed description of how individual systems are meant to be operated and more importantly controlled.
Out of the areas: design, specification, supervision and/or project management of mechanical & electrical engineering services installations, which are more prone to complications that can lead to litigation?
They are all prone to complications, you cannot purely say it is design or specification or project management. They all have problems and as I said earlier, if you hire the right people the possibility of these problems, although not necessarily eradicated are nonetheless significantly reduced. If you don’t have the right people, the problem becomes worse as the contract progresses. If you haven’t clearly stated what you want in the brief, then miscommunication leads to faults throughout the contract.
Following on from this, you can often get situations where the contractor has completed the project having installed and commissioned it. However, the next stage is getting the Operation & Maintenance manuals handed over at Practical Completion and if they are not or they are incomplete then when a problem arises there will be difficulties in fixing the problem if it becomes faulty.
Another problem I find is that many of the same mistakes are occurring time and again on nearly every project I deal with. It would seem to me to indicate that lessons are never learnt by clients and/or contractors. Currently the main issues concern underfloor heating, heat pumps, bio-mass boilers, controls systems, mechanical ventilation (particularly in respect to dealing with solar heat gain) and thermal insulation within building structures. Allied to this is the seeming lack of knowledge as to regulations and relevant standards or in some cases the blatant disregard for such regulation and relevant standards.
How much have you witnessed the world of engineering and construction change over the years of your career? Has this affected the legal profession and legal cases?
When I started work as a trainee engineer in the mid-1960’s two-pipe pumped central heating systems were just starting to be installed and controls usually consisted of a time clock and a room thermostat, possibly even a programmer. Now we are in an era where we have building management systems, renewable energy systems, heat pumps, bio-mass boilers, solar panels and intelligent lighting systems, integrated data communications systems which have greatly enhanced the M&E engineering services sector. There is also a greater understanding and consequent expectation as regards energy-saving and conservation.
The problem in relation to the legal sector is due to advancement in technology. Members of the legal profession think it is still an easy question to ask M&E experts to identify a problem; but the answers are now more complex than they used to be. Whilst the legal profession often wants a simple ‘yes or no’ response to a technical issue, there are often grey areas, where there is no straightforward answer.
A lot of times I am finding that problems are due to the fact there is no single answer. As the saying goes you can give the same problem to five different engineers and get five different solutions that could all work, although admittedly some better than others. With the advancement of technology, it has become somewhat more difficult to present a straightforward response. As mentioned previously, client expectations are higher and costs for these new advancements are higher too, which leads in my experience to clients seeking recourse to litigation a lot earlier these days when something goes wrong or does not perform as expected.
What is your aim as an Expert Witness?
As an Expert Witness and/or expert adviser my aim is to explain the technical issues in the simplest possible terms to my clients and ultimately to the Court. By doing so I can hopefully get the parties to a dispute to mediate rather than to seek recourse to litigation in the Court. In a number of cases I have in fact managed to help my clients avoid going to Court as my reports have enabled the other parties to understand and consequently agree with my opinion.
One case of which I am particularly proud involved my client being the 3rd Defendant in a multi-million pound claim. They were faced with a huge claim, together with the potential of horrendous legal costs as well. I was asked by the instructing solicitor to determine whether our client was in any way liable. On the face of it the case did not look good for my client. However, after an extensive review of court documents, contract documentation, contemporaneous correspondence, relevant regulations and standards, I was able to determine that my client had in my opinion no liability whatsoever and this was later accepted by all parties in a mediation held shortly afterwards, my client being removed from the list of defendants. That to me was a good result for an expert witness to achieve.
Are there any other concerns you have as an Expert?
Firstly, of all the methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) I do not believe adjudication is an appropriate method for many complex, technical issues, mainly because it has a tight timeline of 28 days, although in reality often no more than 14 days for the expert to review and understand the issues and to prepare a report. I know some people involved in the ADR process may disagree, but in my experience working on cases that are not straightforward, there are often technical issues which are hard to review in such a short space of time.
Secondly, the quality of some instructions received concerns me. I sometimes get instructions which aren’t necessarily appropriate, to which I have to liaise with the particular solicitor to gain clarity. The consequences of a brief instruction can also have a big impact. It is not simply a matter of “find out what is wrong” and in my experience Courts like precise instructions to be issued wherever possible. In such cases it often takes a considerable amount of time and may even require independent tests to be carried out, which can add significant cost to the process. Similarly, the lack of ‘As Installed’ drawings or even appropriate Operation & Maintenance documentation may lead to the requirement for in-depth surveys to be undertaken in order to ascertain precisely what engineering services are installed and indeed where they are located before one can determine what is wrong.
Finally, I see a lot of lower value claims that involve technical issues now being referred to the small claims court, where both costs and time are limited. As a consequence I fear many such claims are unable to afford (both in terms of time and money) the services of an expert witness and thus the claimants miss out on having an expert to explain the technical issues, relying instead on the acumen of their legal representatives to state their case.
In one particular case I was instructed by the Court concerned as a single joint expert to review the equivalent of 5 lever arch files, undertake a site inspection on the South Coast and to then prepare a detailed expert report within a time allocation of 4 hours (albeit based upon a notional sum of money). Luckily I managed to convince the Court that the time allocation and thus the fees were insufficient on this occasion and eventually I was granted 4 days (including 1 day on site for my inspection) to prepare and submit my report. In this particular instance I provided technical evidence that raised doubts about the Claimant’s original statements and led to the case being dismissed.
Bob Swayne, Eng. Tech., AMIHEEM
Managing Director
The Hampden Consultancy
Tel: 01494868868
Mobile: 07768497005
Website: www.thehampdenconsultancy.com
Bob is a member of the UK Register of Expert Witnesses. Before setting up The Hampden Consultancy, Bob Swayne spent 3 years with Laing Management where he was employed as a senior building services design co-ordination manager responsible for overseeing the installation and commissioning of M&E engineering services at the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. Throughout his professional career working for various engineering services consultancies, major contractors and PFI consortia he has been involved in the design, specification, supervision and/or project management of mechanical & electrical engineering services installations on a wide range of projects, located both in the UK and overseas. These projects have included hospitals, airport terminal buildings, royal palaces, banking & commercial buildings, government laboratories, hotel & leisure facilities, military facilities and the renovation of ‘listed’ buildings.
The Hampden Consultancy, established in 1993, is the trading name of THC Consulting Engineers Limited and specialises in assisting clients in resolving technical and contractual problems with respect to mechanical & electrical engineering services that can (and often do!) occur on many construction projects, whether during the pre-contract or construction phases, or indeed post-contract.
By Ken Munro, Partner, Pen Test Partners
Jailbreaking – modifying an electronic device to remove restrictions placed on it by the manufacturer – is often used on devices like phones and tablets to allow the owner to download unauthorised software. The practice varies with some estimates suggesting up to 50% of Mac devices are jailbroken in China. It’s popular because it gives the user control over their device and access to content not available in walled gardens such as the App Store. Jailbreak your phone and the worst that can happen is you’ll be scuppered by malware; jailbreak your car and it’s a whole different story.
When it comes to older cars, jailbreaking or customisation has resulted in some relatively harmless modifications. A minority of users have used the OBD2 port to make alterations such as opening the windows from the key fob. But the move to connected cars opens up a host of possibilities, due to the fact these vehicles now run millions of lines of code and have automated the vast majority of car functions.
The Car as a Computer
Connected cars are an array of computers all of which run off the CAN Bus, an intra-vehicle data channel accessed via the OBD (On Board Diagnostics) interface. The CAN Bus is a controller area network that centralises and controls both hardware and software and is used to activate electronic functions such as the ventilation systems, media centre or the alarm or windows, for instance. Accessing the CAN-Bus library is often surprisingly easy; hackers often favour the radio or even the mobile app used to control functions remotely.
It’s also possible to access and reverse engineer the ECU (Engine Control Unit). The ECU is vital in controlling the driving mechanisms of the car and controls the air to fuel ratio, ignition timing and idle speed, among other mechanisms. Hacking the ECU has some real implications as it can allow the owner to override safety features to ‘improve’ performance.
Of course, hacking or customising your car in this way will invalidate the warranty. So why would anyone do this? The answer lies in the move away from a competitive market. Back in February the BBC reported that car manufacturers and independent garages were going head-to-head over who would have legal right to the in-vehicle data created by today’s connected cars. If the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) has its way, that data will be the preserve of manufacturers, preventing small independent garages from accessing vital information on the car.
Data Ownership
Currently under the EU Block Exemption Regulation (BER) manufacturers are required to allow owners to use independent garages to service and maintain their car for them without impacting the warranty. Independent garages are authorised in law to have access to repair and maintenance information to diagnose faults with vehicles and implement fixes.
However, if the ACEA is successful in arguing that this data is owned by the manufacturer and any third-party access could be deemed a security risk, these independent garages will be deprived of access to in-vehicle data and drivers will be forced to use dealerships to maintain their warranties. That could see connected car owners seeking their own ‘work arounds’ to bypass the security measures that prevent this data being accessed.
If that sounds far-fetched, consider that there’s already evidence to suggest owners are doing this, albeit with some very expensive John Deere tractors rather than cars. In the US, farmers are turning to Ukrainian hackers to allow them to use cheaper repair parts and independent garages to fix their tractors, in direct contravention of the contracts they signed with John Deere. The benefits to be gained simply outweigh those associated with maintaining the warranty making this a no-brainer, particularly for those owners who intend to keep the vehicle past its warranty period.
To be fair ACEA is right to raise the point about secure data access. Aside from the issue of physically servicing cars, there’s also the issue of how to keep all that software patched and up-to-date.
Currently the favoured method is using OTA (Over the Air) downloads but this mechanism can itself be maliciously hacked, allowing an attacker to inject code into the system. One recent proof of concept showed how all the Jeeps, Chryslers and Fiats within Manhattan could be brought to a standstill, gridlocking the city. To get around this, manufacturers want to use PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) so that once a software update is issued, the in-car system fetches the patch, checks the signature, verifies the authenticity of the patch and then performs the update. But this requires the manufacturer to have exclusive control over the process; an issue drivers are likely to reject as it’s for the lifetime of the vehicle.
Who’s Liable?
If, however, responsibility for patching systems falls to the driver, this could cause issues in its own right from a legal point of view. According to Section 3.13 of a consultation document for the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, if an Autonomous Vehicle (AV) crashes and the human occupant didn’t update the cars software to the latest version, the insurance company would be able to exclude the liability to the injured motorist. If the software wasn’t at the latest version (perhaps it was only missing a patch for the air conditioning system) the insurance company could now have a loophole to avoid paying out in the event of an accident.
Alternatively, we could see the current fault-based insurance system which looks at driver liability, change to a product-based one, whereby the manufacturer will be held to account. The EU is investigating whether to enforce the use of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) which operate like a black box and it’s likely that the technology will be made mandatory in autonomous vehicles to give crash data on speed, accelerator, braking, seatbelt use etc.
If we do see this kind of drastic overhaul of the insurance model manufacturers are almost certainly going to have more say over data and could well win the argument to restrict access. And perhaps they have a point because with autonomous cars, plug-and-pimp my ride practices could become deadly. What about unlocking a faster mode? Turning off systems that will prevent the car moving if a seatbelt is not on? Or more even more sinister, overriding the security systems that will prevent collisions? In all likelihood, this will see the end of customisation and could see an increase in leasing. And car ownership - that too could become a thing of the past.
Ken Munro can be contacted at ken.munro@pentestpartners.com or follow him on Twitter via @thekenmunroshow
Ken is passionate about empowering the user and blowing away the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) peddled by security vendors. He is a successful entrepreneur and is a founder and partner in Pen Test Partners, a partnership of like-minded professional penetration testers all of whom have a stake in the business. Last year Ken hacked the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SUV and is actively involved in campaigns to improve connected car security. Ken has been in the info security business for 15 years.
Pen Test Partners LLP is a limited liability partnership for one very good reason; being in a partnership means that our people have a vested interest in the company. It’s that employee ownership which inspires and drives quality in what we do. It means that we can meet and exceed the needs of people like you who may feel underserved by their pen testing providers.
We hear from Dr Terri Passenger, who discusses when the Courts require an education psychologist for expert opinion. With her extensive and prestigious position in the scientific world, Dr Passenger speaks on the requirements for an expert witness and their duty in the legal world.
First and foremost, exactly what is an Educational Psychologist?
Since 2009, those qualifying as Educational Psychologists must have completed a six-year training programme where a first degree in Psychology is followed by a compulsory three-year Doctoral qualification. The postgraduate programme combines a robust scientific-training in psychological theories that can enhance the development, learning and emotional wellbeing of the Educational Psychologist’s client-base (usually children and young people up to the age of 25 years) and extensive applied practice in a range of educational and care settings.
Children and young people make progress at different rates and parents, teachers, family doctors or social workers often refer young people because of difficulties affecting their learning, their ability to demonstrate their true ability, their participation in school, college or university activities and by extension, their confidence, their social interactions, their future choices (for employment) and their lives in general.
Educational Psychologists are specifically trained to identify and help these young people whose difficulties can impact negatively not only on their own lives but on that of a whole family. For many young people and their families, timely assessment by an Educational Psychologist can be ‘life-changing’.
Do all Educational Psychologists work as Expert Witnesses?
No, Expert Witness work still tends to be regarded as a ‘specialist’ field. In order to work as an Expert Witness, an Educational Psychologist will typically have been awarded ‘chartered’ status, a benchmark of professional recognition by the British Psychological Society, denoting the highest standards of psychological knowledge and expertise. Since 2009, all practitioner psychologists are also subject to statutory regulation by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) so that Chartered Psychologists registered with the HCPC now work within compulsory professional codes of conduct, ethical frameworks and regulatory processes. Educational Psychologists working with children and young people must all also hold a Disclosure and Barring Certificate (DBS).
What kind of legal cases are Educational Psychologists appointed?
The Educational Psychologist works as an Expert Witness typically within the family court system, when assessments of young people’s needs are required, and also in special educational needs and disability tribunals (SENDISTs). The work may involve assessments of a child’s ability (educational, developmental or social) or the suitability of educational placement. Courts are increasingly looking to Experts to provide what they regard as scientific, validated assessments (usually through the use of standardised psychometric tests) to identify psychological factors that may underpin the child or young person’s special educational needs: ‘needs’ which are often evidenced by underachievement, disaffection or social exclusion amongst these groups of vulnerable young people.
What is the duty of the Educational Psychologist Expert Witness?
As with all Expert Witness work, impartiality is essential to the evidence and the Educational Psychologist has an overriding duty to the Court to present clear, relevant and robust evidence. As a profession, psychology is borne largely on the ability to acquire information through careful questioning, examination, testing and on drawing scientifically-based conclusions from any form of assessment. Educational Psychologists are, therefore, well equipped to contribute both scientific fact and/or specialised knowledge as Expert Witnesses.
About Dr Terri Passenger
Dr Terri Passenger is a Chartered Educational Psychologist and Senior Partner in a Cheltenham-based private Practice of Educational Psychologists which holds clinics daily in Cheltenham, Oxford and Harley Street. She is an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine and holds an Honorary University Research Fellowship. Dr Passenger has co-authored several academic texts on the psychology of education and also co-authored a publication commissioned by the British Medical Association to aid GPs who often find themselves ‘front-lining’ parental concerns about some of the developmental disorders which can impact on young people’s lives.
About Aspire Psychologists
Aspire Psychologists was founded in Cheltenham in 1984. From its earliest beginnings, the Practice has provided a valuable service in assessing psychological needs and providing expert advice on addressing those needs. The Practice psychologists are trained and experienced in using a broad range of assessment materials and are often called as Expert Witnesses. Two short Case Study examples demonstrate the range of Expert Witness Advice available.
Case Study 1: Dr Passenger was instructed to give expert advice in relation to a school placement for two children following a marital divorce settlement. The father wished for the children to be educated in a boarding school at some distance from the former family home while the mother wished for the younger child to move with the mother to her new residence and attend the local primary school. Dr Passenger needed to assess the learning needs of the children and then visit the two schools and give a professional opinion of the suitability of each.
Case Study 2: Dr Passenger was instructed to give expert advice in relation to the placement options for a young adolescent with an autistic spectrum disorder who had been excluded from his local secondary school. Dr Passenger needed to assess the young man’s cognitive ability and his social/life-skill needs as a vulnerable member of society. Dr Passenger presented evidence from the young man, from his family, from the staff of his former school and from the four establishments she visited with a view to his placement.
Dr Terri Passenger
01242 574646 / 01452 621634
office@aspirepsychologists.co.uk
Joanne Caffrey works throughout the UK and Republic of Ireland for Expert cases, training or consultancy; custody, education and care is her speciality. She has worked as an adviser for BBC Radio4 File on Four investigations and Radio 5 Live Investigations and has delivered training to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) regarding police custody. She speaks with Lawyer Monthly this month about what the police force and management for schools can implement, in order to avoid injury, self-harm or death during custody or in education.
What are the common cases you deal with on a common basis? Do you think these have increased over the years?
The cases I currently deal with are either custodial or education settings, and someone gets injured or dies. I have just completed my first full year as an Expert since leaving the police but I was long seen as a custody expert within the police employment.
What do you think could be done to reduce or monitor such cases?
The common errors with the cases are that employers fail to ensure that staff have suitable and sufficient training to deal with complex people. Standard training no longer fits the needs of most service users and refresher training appears to be missing. Bad habits creep into practice and managers are not policing the work place to put things right. For example, with suicides occurring in custody too often, staff are unaware of the risk factors and triggers that increase the likely hood of such events; therefore, a series of control measures fail to happen with prisoners which then present opportunities for self-harm or suicide to be committed. In the schools, most often staff are on close supervision with children with educational needs and disabilities, yet they have received little or no training about the needs they require. Too often than not, training received focuses upon restraining, rather than trying to manage down incidents. Thus, staff with little or no knowledge are having to make dynamic assessments and restrain children with complex needs. Hence things go wrong posing risk to both staff and children who often get hurt.
What do you think accounts towards unjust behaviour during police custody? Are those under the influence of alcohol and drugs more vulnerable and less inclined to not seek action?
Any person under the influence of alcohol, drugs, head injuries, or other medical conditions are at increased risk. Levels of observation were introduced in 2005 to afford safeguards to detainees, but this increases staffing demands. This is added cost and the management teams don’t like further cost implications. Bad habits have crept in and, for example: a detainee under the influence of alcohol who is not incapable, should be visited at least every 30 minutes (minimum), and roused to check they are safe; commonly I see and hear staff are placing these detainees on hourly visits to relieve staffing pressures.
Regarding unjust behaviour in custody – a lot of it is down to a lack of communication. Detainees are placed in a cell and left. With hourly visits, where staff often don’t even speak to the detainee when they visit, provokes the highly stressful situation, similar to a pressure cooker waiting to go off. Then there are head injuries: the non-visible head injuries, which are caused prior or during the arrest, result in potential capillary bleeds affecting the pressure in the head. As it is not visible to staff, it’s essential that close monitoring for behaviour changes takes place in the initial hours of custody. If detainees are feeling unwell their behaviour is also likely to become increasingly unpredictable. I think the complexities of custody are greatly under appreciated by management and safe staffing models for detainee care and attention need to be addressed more than they currently are.
Regarding challenging behaviour in the education sector, what added difficulties are there with cases involving child protection issues?
There is little or no monitoring nationally concerning staff use of force on children. If a staff member wanted to abuse their position it would be so easy to do so. Some schools are conducting disproportionately high levels of restraints on children with no national comparisons to identify schools standing out, although the use of monitoring it would identify staff at increased risk of injury or needing additional training in managing down challenging behaviour, rather than old style training, single dimension, of restraint. I tend to find primary schools restrain more than secondary schools and this is a simple fact that your own safety switch kicks in if you are dealing with a teenager compared to a primary child. Just because you are strong enough to restrain a child does not make it right.
Do you think there could be any changes in regulations in order to help ensure these cases reduce? Moreover, what do you think the police force could do?
The guidance and legislation is there. What is required is the reinforced professional quality training and quality assurance checks with safe staffing levels – safe for the detainees, not just about the staff. I’ve seen a dilution in custody training over the years with trainers having no or little experience of a custody environment. Some trainers I have spoken with have no knowledge of the history of custody training from the Safer Detention and Handling (SDHP) training in 2003 and the deaths in custody which occurred before that, (for example the Christopher Alder death in 1998). I was a custody sergeant when this death occurred and this motivated me in my quest to improve custody safety. I have now secured a CPD accreditation for a 5-day course managing safer custody in my quest to improve custody safety, but it needs to start with managers who have the authority and opportunity to enforce change. Regarding schools, I think the Department of Education needs to start looking at school strategies for managing down challenging behaviour which currently are not commonly in existence.
What do you think could be done to ensure that cases involving self-harm and suicide in prison and/or custody reduce in nature?
Staff in both police and prison sectors do not fully understand about triggers and warning signs for self-harm and suicide. Several reviews have highlighted this over the years and cases I have been involved with also confirm this to still be the case. I have now secured a CPD accreditation for a 1 day course in self-harm and suicide in custody. Prison and police have the procedures and policies there, but the staff and management just don’t understand it.
In what ways are people often misinformed when dealing with the elderly and/or those with disabilities and special educational needs?
I believe many training providers are single focused and teach: ‘if behaviour A happens, respond with restraint A’, but this is not taking into account special educational needs and disabilities or the age of the service user. A one size response does not fit all, plus the demographics of the staff need to be taken into consideration; a young fit 25-year-old member of staff has different capabilities to a 50-year-old. I have a team of specialists working with me from the Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND), Occupational Therapy, Nursing, Geriatric and Sensory Integration worlds. We are able to attend work places and develop person centred behaviour plans from a multi discipline approach and then train the staff accordingly. We work on managing down challenging behaviour. For example, it’s estimated that over 80% of children on the autistic spectrum also have a sensory processing disorder which is not diagnosed, as statutory services struggle to provide this expertise. We are able to identify it and work with it to reduce the likelihood of incidents occurring, thus safeguarding children and staff and enabling all children in the class to focus on their learning without constant interruptions.
I am Joanne Caffrey, an Expert Witness for Safer Custody, Challenging behaviour and use of force. My Expert business is Joanne Caffrey Expert www.joannecaffreyexpert.co.uk and my training company is Total Train www.totaltrain.co.uk .
I was a police officer for 24 years and specialised in safer detention and handling of detained people in custody. I wrote the initial national training package for safer custody and achieved national awards for my training in these areas.
I currently work with over 300 schools concerning managing challenging behaviour and I have worked as an Expert on a variety of cases including:
Suicide in prison
Handcuff injuries
Police custody procedures
Staff injured in schools
Children injured in schools
Nurses assaulted in secure units
Joanne Caffrey
Expert Witness
In the wake of multiple attacks in England, British Prime Minister Theresa May is raising eyebrows by saying there’s been “too much tolerance” of extremism, and calling out US tech companies for not doing enough to combat terrorist content on the internet. (Source: NBC)
Labour is in a tough position when it comes to Brexit. In its heartlands in the north, the party's traditional supporters voted to leave the European Union but in its urban strongholds they voted heavily to remain. Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is in the unenviable position of balancing those two opposing demands. I went to his constituency of Camden in north London to find out about the party's Brexit negotiation plans and ask why Theresa May seems hellbent on giving the impression she'll leave the European Union with no deal.
[vc_row][vc_column][bs-grid-listing-1 columns="2" title="Editors Picks" show_excerpt="1" hide_title="0" count="2" post_ids="14783, 14806" tabs="" tabs_cat_filter="" pagination-show-label="1" pagination-slides-count="1" slider-animation-speed="750" slider-autoplay="1" slider-speed="3000" bs-show-desktop="1" bs-show-tablet="1" bs-show-phone="1" _heading_1="" _heading_2="" paginate="none"][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Rivulis Irrigation Ltd. of Israel and Eurodrip S.A. of Greece announced that the two companies have entered into a definitive merger agreement in an all-share transaction, creating a global leader in micro irrigation. Transaction closing is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions including, but not limited to, regulatory approvals. The merged company will have unparalleled market coverage with 18 factories around the world and 1,800 employees across 5 continents and 30 countries. Growers around the world will benefit from an extensive product and solution offering, consisting of trusted industry brands such as T-Tape™, Ro-Drip™, Hydrogol™, D5000, Eolos™, Compact™, PC2™ and Olympos™. The merged company will be headquartered in Gvat, Israel and will be named Rivulis Irrigation, Ltd. Richard Klapholz, the current CEO of Rivulis Irrigation, will lead the merged company.
All current shareholders of the two companies – FIMI Opportunity Funds, Israel’s leading private equity fund (FIMI), US based Paine & Partners, LLC (Paine & Partners) and Dhanna Engineering of India – will remain shareholders of the merged company and will remain active on the Board of Directors, ensuring continuity and providing strong support for the success of the merged company. FIMI will maintain a majority stake and Gillon Beck, the current Chairman of Rivulis Irrigation and Senior Partner at FIMI, will serve as the Chairman of the merged entity. The company will continue to support both the Rivulis and Eurodrip brands, and will remain strongly committed to its mission of providing continuous innovation, and strong service to help growers to optimise yields sustainably and economically while addressing water and land scarcity.
Richard Klapholz, Rivulis Irrigation CEO, commented on the merger: “We are thrilled to have these two leading companies join forces to better serve the growing needs of the irrigation markets around the world. While benefitting from significant operational economies of scale, we will ensure that all commitments to our distribution business partners are maintained and further strengthened. Our goal is to ensure that our business partners will continue to be successful with the products and solutions of both companies – but now with a wider offering and stronger manufacturing base.”
Pillarstone Italy announced that they had finalised the full acquisition of Italy's Premuda and would invest 50 million euros ($53.5 million) to support the relaunch of the troubled shipping company.
Pillarstone Italy is a platform set up by US private equity firm KKR to restructure ailing companies.
The shipping industry is in an eight-year downturn due to slowing international trade.
Berlingieri Maresca were acquired by by Pillarstone to assist with all the shipping law aspects of the transaction (both in Italy and abroad) with a particular attention to the loans and securities on the Vessels; Andrea Berlingieri led the transaction with the support of Lorenzo Pellerano.
Pillarstone also said Popolare Emilia Romagna had joined rivals Intesa Sanpaolo, UniCredit and Carige in transferring to the platform credits towards Premuda; Permuda’s management remains the same with Stefano Rosina as CEO and Marco Tassara as Managing Director.
The KNIME Summit, KNIME.com AG announced that equity investor INVUS has invested €20 million in the company to support its ongoing work in transforming the data science industry.
“We’re excited to have an investor that truly understands open source and recognizes the potential for expanding across the enterprise,” says CEO Michael Berthold of KNIME.com AG. “Even though KNIME was already profitable and is growing strongly, we see a huge window of opportunity for our open source strategy combined with our vision of bringing Guided Analytics to the large group of users who have not been able to benefit from using advanced analytics to date.”
KNIME, with a growing group of software companies, believes that opening up previously closed or exclusive platforms, processes, tools, organisational boundaries and idea sourcing can speed up innovation while reducing risk. That understanding provides the basis for KNIME’s software development as well as its approach to working with the community in the analytics space.
Today, KNIME users can be found in large-scale enterprises in over 50 countries and across a wide range of industries including life sciences, financial services, publishers, retailers and e-tailers, manufacturing, consulting firms, government and research.
INVUS was advised by EY Germany for Financial and Tax Due Diligence. Thomas Prüver, EY Transaction Services Partner, based in Berlin and dedicated to transactions on fast growing tech businesses, said: “It is exciting to see these growing tech businesses, which can substantially drive the digitisation of our industry.”
