The Growth of Private Security and Associated Criminological Concerns
| Author | John Hugh Colleran |
| Position | Senior Sophister (Law), Trinity College, Dublin |
| Pages | 103-125 |
THE
GROWTH
OF
PRIVATE
SECURITY
AND
ASSOCIATED
CRIMINOLOGICAL
CONCERNS
JOHN
HUGH
COLLERAN*
Introduction
Policing
has
become
an
increasingly
significant
area
of
study
for
criminologists
since
the
advent
of
labelling
theory
in
the
early
1960s.
The
vast bulk
of
this
study
has
been
exclusively focused
on
policing
as
carried
out
by
the
state
through
the
public
police
service.
The
integral role
played
by
the private
security
industry
in
policing
society
has
been
generally
overlooked
and, while the
explosive growth
of
the
industry
in
recent
decades
has
provoked
a
growing
academic
response,
there
is
still
a
regrettable
dearth
of
research
and
discussion.
As
private
agents
come
to
define
social
order
more and more, and
facilitate
the
entry
of
an
ever-
greater proportion
of
people
to
the
criminal
justice
system,
it
is
beyond
time
that
we
examined
this growth, the reasons
behind
it,
and
its
consequences.
The
Growth
of
the
Private
Security
Industry
In
Ireland,
the
private
security industry
has
become
increasingly
visible
and
public
concern
is
regularly
aroused
by
various
practices
and
poor
standards, usually reported
in
isolation
by
the
media
as
they
crop
up
due
to
a
specific event
or
prosecution.
There
has,
however,
been
a surprising
failure
on the
part
of
journalists,
sociologists,
legal
scholars
and
policy
makers,
to
examine
the
growth
of
the
industry
in
general
and
the
problems
that this
has
engendered.
One
exception
to
this failure was
the
publication
of
the
Report
of
the
Consultative
Group on
the
Private
Security
Industry
in
December
1997.1
This
report
was
critical
of,
and
exposed
a
desire
to
redress,
serious
problems
within
the
industry
such
as
inadequate training
of
staff,
infiltration
by
criminal elements
of
some sections
of
the industry
and
poor
compliance
with
revenue, social
welfare, health
and
safety,
and
company
law.
The Group
was
composed
largely
of
parties
with
an
interest
in
the
continued
expansion
of
the
industry
2
and had
as its
acknowledged
Senior Sophister
(Law), Trinity
College,
Dublin.
'The
Report
of
the
Consultative
Group
on the
Private
Security
Industry
(Stationery
Office,
1997),
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
'Private
Security
Industry
Report'.
2
Private
Security
Industry Report,
at
12.
0
2002
John
Colleran
and
Dublin University
Law
Society
Trinity
College
Law Review
aim
"that
high standards
in
the
Security
Industry
will
serve
as
a
powerful
adjunct
to
the
statutory agencies
engaged
in
the
preservation
of
law
and
order".
3
Naturally
then,
criticism
of
the industry
was
limited
in
its
scope
to
these practical,
but
nonetheless
important
issues
and
avoided
exploration
of
more
fundamental
and
inherent
problems
associated
with
the industry.
Neither
was
any
reference made
to
the
involvement
of
elements
of
the
industry
in certain unsuitable
and
unpalatable
areas
of
activity.
In any
case,
the
welcome
outcome
of
the
report
was
that
the
Consultative
Group
urged
the
establishment
of
a
statutory
body,
the
'Irish
Security
Authority',
to
"introduce, control
and
manage
a
comprehensive
licensing
system
for
the
Industry
',4 as
this
would
certainly
go
some way
towards
addressing
problems
outlined
in
the
Report.
The
Group
envisaged
that
the
Bill
establishing
the
Authority would
be
published
in 1998.
The
government,
however,
was
extremely slow
to
act
on the
Report's
findings
and
although
they
defeated
a
Private
Members
Bill
published
in
June
1999,
5
based
on
the
proposals
in
the
Report,
they
failed
to
publish
an
alternative
Bill
6
until
January
2001.
As
a
result
of
this
procrastination,
while
our neighbours
in
Northern Ireland have
had
government
regulation
and
a
system
of
public
licensing
of
private
security
personnel
since
1988,
7
Ireland and
Britain
8
remain
the
only
two
countries
in
the
EU
not to
have
implemented
statutory
regulation
of
the
private
security
industry.
9
The
only guidance
provided
by
the
state
in
the
area
is a
number
of
voluntary
standards.
Irish
Standard
199
and
IS
228
merely relate
to
intruder
alarms
and
alarm
monitoring
centres
respectively.
A
third,
IS
999,
launched
in
September
1999,
is
wider
in
scope,
providing
criteria
for
the
recruiting,
vetting,
and
training
of
employees
in
the
private security
sector. Only
a
small
proportion
of
firms
in
the
industry
at
large
have
ascribed
to these standards
°
and
those
that
have
are
mainly
the
reputable
firms
at
the
top end
of
the
market
who
least
required
such
regulation.
Efforts
at
self-regulation
by
associations representing the
industry have
been
similarly
limited.
Among
the
largest
and
most
reputable
of
these
representative
bodies
is
the
Irish
Security
Industry
Association
(ISIA),
3
Private Security
Industry Report,
at
20.
4
Private
Security
Industry
Report,
at
7.
'
Private
Security
Services
Bill, 1999.
6
Private Security
Services
Bill,
2001.
7
Part
III
of
The Northern
Ireland
(Emergency
Provisions)
Act
1987,
'Regulation
of
the
Provision
of
Security
Services',
was
brought
in
primarily
to
combat
the
involvement
of
paramilitary
groups
in
protection
rackets
run
by
security
firms.
The
Private
Security
Industry
Act
2001
became
law
in
Britain on
11
May
2001
but
is
not yet
in
force
as
the
'Security
Industry
Authority'
provided
for
therein
has
not
been established.
9
Jones
and
Newbum,
Private
Security
and
Public
Policing
(Clarendon
Press,
1998),
at
92.
See
also
Private
Security Industry
Report,
at
17.
10
Private
Security
Industry Report,
at
21-22.
Only
250
of
the
750
companies
installing
alarms
in
1997
complied
with
IS
199
and
only
15-20
stations
which
could
qualify
under
IS
225
were
in
existence.
[Vol.
5
To continue reading
Request your trial