Lucia Johnson, a staff nurse at Broadmoor Hospital, West London Mental Health NHS Trust, has secured £21,500 compensation following two assaults by a patient.

The assaults took place in December 2002 and July 2003. During the first assault, Lucia Johnson's nose and left hand were injured when the patient threw objects at her. He was known to have a tendency to throw things at members of staff but objects had not been either removed from his room, locked away or fixed into position.

In July 2003, Mrs Johnson entered the patient's room with three other colleagues, as the patient was attempting to kill himself. She explains:

"He punched me on the chin and on my right shoulder and as a result of my injuries, I had several months off work. He was often violent, but in spite of the complaints made by members of staff he was not removed to a more secure unit where more members of staff would have been available to supervise or medicate him. Many members of staff were unhappy about the special attention he was getting. He was trying to kill himself by ripping up material and putting them around his neck."

Eddie Jaggers, Regional Officer, UNISON, comments:

"Our member Lucia Johnson was clearly put at risk by Broadmoor Hospital and as a result was assaulted twice by a patient known to be violent. Although searches had been regularly carried out in his room, the appropriate action was not taken. We are therefore very pleased with the compensation secured."

Anita Rattan of Thompsons Solicitors, who represented Mrs Johnson, said:

"It is unacceptable that so many nurses who work alone should have to endure assault or harassment. Lucia Johnson's case highlights the very real dangers they face."

The case highlights the liability of organisations who expect their staff to work on their own, particularly if they are expected to intervene in situations of potential risk.

For staff who work with children, this point is made clear in the Children's Act 1969 which states, in Section 1.83:

"Where children in homes have suffered particularly damaging experiences, and have difficultly developing the self-control or good personal relationships which diminish the need for physical restraint, it is important that sufficient, able staff are employed to ensure that the children are dealt with sensitively and with dignity."

Note the emphasis on "sufficient, able staff are employed". This requires that the employer has a duty to ensure that the appropriate staffing levels and that staff are "able" (i.e., have the ability to do the skill to a competent level) so that if force has to be used on a child there are enough trained staff on duty to be able to handle the intervention competently, appropriately and effectively.

This is further emphasised by Sir Herbert Lammings document: 'The Control of Children in the Public Care: Interpretation of the Children Act 1989 (S.S.I. 1997)' where he states:

"Every effort should be made to secure the presence of other staff to ensure that any action taken is both safe and successful.

It would be an error of judgement if a member of staff tried to restrain a young person without proper assistance and in so doing caused injury to himself or the young person because the intervention was handled ineptly."

This particular ruling therefore, has considerable consequences for many organisations who expect their staff to work alone, sometimes without even the ability to summon other members of staff, and without adequate training and suitable personal protective equipment.

More recently we have seen legislation introduced that allows teaching staff to stop and search pupils for knives and, if necessary, use force to remove the weapon should a pupil not wish to hand the offending item over. I sincerely hope that the agencies concerned consider the risk from a holistic perspective, otherwise they will, very likely, end up being liable, as this case has illustrated.