In September 2010, a prison officer attended a one-day control and restraint training course run by the Scottish Prison Service at its Fauldhouse facility in West Lothian. The exercise was a simulated prison riot — full riot gear, metal gates, mock prisoners barricading the doors. She carried a large shield and advanced with her team. Then she was struck by a 12-foot plank, wielded by another officer playing the role of a rioter.
She was hit three times. Her shield slammed back into her visor, jerking her head. She sued the Scottish Ministers for £6,460 in damages, arguing breach of duty of care. Last month, she lost.
What the Court Found
The case, heard at Livingston Sheriff Court, turned on a single question: had the Scottish Prison Service done enough to keep the training safe while keeping it realistic?
“The defenders had to make the training as realistic as possible, and the pursuer’s own witnesses accepted that this even made it permissible for the mock rioters to strike prison officers’ shields with objects.”
Sheriff Kinloch was clear. The safety measures were “carefully and professionally thought out.” It was “difficult to see that they could have been substantially improved.” He found that the risk of injury was “a small risk of a slight injury” — not negligence, but the residual reality of physical training.
“The defenders, in my view, did as much as they reasonably could to prevent injury, but it seems to me that it was simply not possible to completely remove all risks of injury.”
The expert witness for the defence put it even more directly: it is impossible sometimes to completely eliminate the risk of injury when there is human interaction. At Dynamis, we call this the “collision of bodies” — a recognition that even the best-planned training drills carry an irreducible element of unpredictability.
Four Lessons for Training Providers
Having worked directly with the Scottish Prison Service College and their risk managers, I can attest that this ruling reflects the reality of how they operate. They are serious professionals, deeply aware of their safety responsibilities. The sheriff’s support is well-placed. But the case also offers four clear lessons for anyone who designs or delivers physical intervention training.
First, training fidelity matters. The best learning happens when the training environment closely matches the operational environment. Where staff are likely to need conflict management or physical intervention skills, organisations have a duty to provide the highest-quality, most realistic training possible. You cannot prepare people for chaos with a PowerPoint.
Second, risk cannot be eliminated entirely. The sheriff accepted the defence expert’s view that some risk is inherent in any training that involves physical interaction. This isn’t a licence to be careless — it’s an honest acknowledgment that “safe” doesn’t mean “zero risk.” It means the risks have been reasonably assessed and reduced.
Third, risk assessments carry real legal weight. The court appears to have given considerable strength to the fact that suitable and sufficient risk assessments were in place. This wasn’t a box-ticking exercise — it was evidence that proper thought had been given to safety, and that evidence proved decisive.
Fourth, realism and safety can co-exist. The case shows that training fidelity and safe practice are not opposing forces. You don’t have to choose between preparing people properly and keeping them safe. You do have to invest the time and expertise to manage both.
💡 Key takeaway: This ruling is a vote of confidence for training providers who take risk assessment seriously. When you can demonstrate that your safety measures were carefully and professionally thought out — and that you did as much as reasonably possible to prevent injury — the law will recognise that realistic training carries a necessary, irreducible level of risk.
Gerard O’Dea is a conflict management, personal safety, and physical interventions training consultant. He is the training director for Dynamis, a specialist provider of personal safety and violence management programmes, and the European Adviser for ‘Verbal Defense and Influence’, a global programme which addresses the spectrum of human conflict.