Spotlight On: Spit guards

Spit hoods or guards have returned to fore after Met Commissioner Cressida Dick revealed officers would not use the equipment during an arrest although it will be used in custody. Her decision contradicts the Home Secretary who, in his speech at the Police Federation’s conference in May, backed calls for spit guards to be used in all forces, calling it ‘ridiculous’ that some officers had them while others didn’t.

More than 30 out of the 43 forces in England and Wales use spit guards, according to the MPS Federation Chair Ken Marsh. Whilst their introduction has gathered pace, forces are divided on their use. Some, such as the MPS, restrict them to custody suites while others, such as Northumbria Police, will equip all frontline and detention officers with guards after recorded data showed 341 police employees were spat at last year. Concerns remain, however, regarding their legitimacy and their effectiveness.

Rory Geoghegan: Rise in hepatitis C necessitates introduction of spit guards

Policing Insight has covered the issue of spit guards in some depth. In September 2016, Rory Geoghegan from the Centre for Public Safety argued that the general introduction of spit guards was over due given hepatitis C had doubled in London in three years and 59 per cent of London’s injecting drug users have hepatitis C.

Sandra Andrews: Officers need to be listened to for the sake of their health and well being

In her articles, CoPacc’s Sandra Andrews called for officers to be listened to, especially regarding controversial issues such as spit guards that directly affect their physical and emotional welfare. She says the media has a tendency to down play the issue. In the second of her two articles, Sandra Andrews talks to a police officer with direct experience of being spat at in a powerful piece that conveys the devastating effect it had on himself and his family. 

Holly Lynch MP: MPs must get behind chief constables on spit guards

The introduction of spit guards has received political support, most notably from Holly Lynch MP who wrote an exclusive article for Policing Insight in January 2017 calling on MPs to lend chief constables political support for spit guards. Holly Lynch also invited MPs to meet two officers who had been spat on and presented a piece of draft legislation to toughen sentences including following the Australian model where the penalty for failing to provide a blood sample for those who spit at an officer is a $12,000 fine or 12-month prison sentence.

Ian Pointon: Officers would rather be punched  than spat at

In January 2017, we ran an article airing the two sides of the debate. Ian Pointon, chair of Kent Police Federation argued spit guards offered vital protection. Officers believe spit guards reduces their use of force and he warned that if we don’t protect officers they will improvise to protect themselves which is potentially more problematic.

Chris Topping: Police are jumping in without any thought as to how and when these guards will be used

On the other side of the debate, human rights lawyer Chris Topping believes the guards are primitive and represent the ‘far end of policing’. He questioned the lack of empirical evidence on the value of spit guards and the likelihood of contracting hepatitis C.

Graham Hooper of Canterbury Christ Church University further outlined the debate in his article for Policing Insight in February 2017 when he explored the concerns around the dehumanising effect of spit guards and whether they are too oppressive to be legitimate in a country such as ours.

As a former police officer and now lecturer in criminology at Nottingham Trent University, Dr Matt Ashby brought a unique perspective to his article which took a closer look at the evidence available in terms of whether officers are at risk of contracting a contagious disease and whether spit guards are effective at preventing officers from being spat at or merely lead to further violence.