Private security operates in an environment of increasing visibility. Interactions that once ended at the conclusion of a shift may now be reviewed days or weeks later — through incident reports, CCTV footage, mobile phone recordings, complaints, or regulatory inquiries.
In this context, use of force decisions and incident reporting practices carry long-tail risk. How an incident is handled, documented and reviewed can be just as important as what occurred in the moment.
Use of force is one of the most scrutinised aspects of security work. Even when force is lawful and proportionate, the absence of clear procedures, training records or quality reporting can expose officers and providers to unnecessary risk. Conversely, strong systems help demonstrate professionalism, accountability and compliance with regulatory expectations.
Incident reporting plays a critical role. Reports are often relied upon by clients, regulators, insurers and, in some cases, courts. Incomplete or poorly written reports can undermine otherwise appropriate actions, while clear, factual reporting supports transparency and organisational learning.
Public scrutiny is also a reality the industry must manage. Security officers frequently work in public or semi-public environments, and incidents may be viewed without context by external audiences. This makes consistent procedures, supervision and post-incident review essential safeguards — not just for individual officers, but for employers and the industry’s reputation as a whole.
Importantly, responsibility does not rest solely with frontline staff. Security providers are expected to ensure that policies are current, training is delivered and refreshed, and incidents are reviewed appropriately. Good systems protect people on all sides: officers, clients, members of the public and businesses.
SPAAL encourages members to regularly review their use of force and incident management frameworks to ensure they reflect current expectations, operational realities and jurisdictional requirements.
Note on State and Territory Differences
Use of force powers, reporting obligations and licensing conditions vary between states and territories. Providers should ensure policies and training reflect the requirements of each jurisdiction in which they operate, including regulator guidance and local legislation.