‘Genuine concern’ as police body armour fails bullet test

POLICE officers could be left at risk after body armour failed a series of bullet safety tests, causing experts to label the findings a “genuine cause for concern”.

Safety tests, commissioned by The Mail on Sunday, were carried out on lightweight polyethylene chest plates, increasingly being rolled out among Special Forces, Royal protection teams and anti-terrorism units.

In one of the tests in a governmentapproved laboratory, a chest plate was placed in front of a pig torso, traditionally used in such tests as it has similar properties to a human body, and shot.

The impact caused severe damage, ripping into the heart. After examining photographs, a senior NHS trauma consultant said the injuries were unsurvivable, adding: “This evidence gives genuine cause for concern.

“There is an urgent need for further study. An enormous amount of force is pushed through the plate even though the plate stops the round. While a human heart has more protection than a pig’s heart, due to the positioning of the chest wall, this is still alarming.”

This type of injury is known as “behind armour blunt trauma”. In tests conducted by the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, using official standards on variables such as the speed of the bullet, the armour passed safety limits. Neither body makes public which body armour plates they use, citing security reasons, so a commonly worn vest was used in these tests.

Ché Donald, of the Police Federation, and Mark Williams, head of the Police Firearms Officers Association,

‘Anything that suggests equipment may not be fit for purpose needs investigating as a matter of urgency”

told The Telegraph: “Anything that suggests equipment may not be fit for purpose needs to be further investigated as a matter of urgency, before any serious injury or loss of life.”

A Government spokesman said: “The MOD and Home Office procure various types of body armour, all of which are rigorously assessed using internationally recognised test standards. We have not seen any evidence to indicate that the current standards do not provide adequate protection.”