Every month, ‘In Conversation With…’ will feature leading lights in the sector, PSSA members, and others who will be able to give insight into the current state of the physical security sector, and factors currently affecting it.
This month we speak to…
Jonathan Neal
Q: Could you begin by telling us about your professional background and experience in perimeter security and hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM)?
JN: Like a lot of people, I’ve had a varied career path after leaving University, where I studied criminology and criminal law, but I suppose the seeds of what I do now were planted there, because I did my dissertation on intelligence failings in the run up to 9/11.
I trained at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2006 and served in the British army to two years before joining Sussex Police CTU in 2008, working within the Protect strand. This involved working closely with a number of departments across policing and the wider network of Emergency Services. I became a CTSA for the force and was responsible for a number of different crowded place locations and areas of critical national infrastructure. I transferred to the Metropolitan Police in 2010 to work within S020 and their protective security command, again overseeing a number of crowded places and CNI sites as well as delivering CT training in the form of then Project Argus initiatives in the run up to London 2012. Whilst in the Met I obtained my Licentiateship in Counter Terrorism and Security Management.
After a period away from policing, working in the third sector and running my own business I rejoined the Police in 2019, initially on response in Surrey and then Northamptonshire before returning to the CTSA world with Counter Terrorism Policing South East. I joined SAFECROWDS as Head of Counter Terrorism & Risk in 2024 to head up their TVRA, VDA and HVM capabilities and working closely with their security and canine detection teams.
Q: In your experience, how has perimeter security and HVM evolved in recent years, particularly in response to emerging threats?
JN: Since my initial time working with HVM, I have seen huge strides, not just in the aesthetics and design but the engineering capabilities, and I believe we will see an exponential growth in the coming years with the help of emerging technologies. The use of metal powder 3D printing for example may well allow manufacturers to achieve new designs that increase either the mitigation levels or ease of deployment. Ideally, product development should focus on both of these priorities, because, while operational effectiveness is key, keeping people safe is the main priority of any protection system.
We are all aware of the threats faced from vehicle as a weapon attack, and, with radicalisation on the increase, the need to be vigilant to the use of vehicles to cause harm to others is also greater than ever, not just from the likes of Islamist inspired terrorist groups but from self-initiated terrorists and any number of ideological causes.
Q: What do you consider to be the most significant threats that perimeter security and HVM solutions need to address today?
JN: A key consideration is the developments in electric vehicles, which are stronger and heavier with more power and torque than most regular vehicles, potentially requiring most robust mitigation. I know this is firmly on the NPSA’s radar and something manufacturers need to factor into design and engineering of their HVM systems.
There is also a knowledge gap and a need to educate the public about HVM and the role it plays in their safety. The risk of the public and clients thinking that HVM will stop an attack isn’t really being talked about – while HVM is a fantastic tool, it will only reduce potential risk and give people more time to react; it needs to be part of a wider solution, which must consider preparedness and response. I have been privy to a number of conversations where people think that deploying HVM solves a problem, so it’s essential that we don’t allow HVM to be marketed as a tick box exercise. Mitigation should be used to mitigate risks and should always be deployed to the right standard and in the correct configurations – the ‘something is better than nothing’ approach simply gives people a false sense of security.
Q: How has technology enhanced the effectiveness of perimeter security and HVM systems, and what cutting-edge innovations do you see making a difference soon?
JN: Technology is progressing at a fantastic speed and there’s massive potential to integrate technology into HVM to deliver a more complete risk mitigation solution. If I can buy a fridge that scans products in and out and automatically creates me a shopping list, similar technology could be used to develop temporary HVM solutions with CCTV systems built directly within them to monitor approach roads and activate early warning alarms to oncoming threats…. Can I quickly patent that idea actually!
Q: Do you feel there is sufficient clarity on testing standards for HVM equipment, such as those detailed by the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), including the Vehicle Attack Delay Standard (VADS), ISO 22343-1, and international standards such as Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) testing?
JN: Absolutely! I think the NPSA does a great job in providing the standards and details needed for companies to utilise when creating and specifying an HVM solution that is justifiable, proportionate and appropriate for the identified risk. At SAFECROWDS when we conduct a TVRA and VDA for a client, we often signpost them to the NPSA website so they can see the myriad of solutions available to them. Only then can the client be fully aware of the risks and mitigation solutions that exist, so that they can take informed decisions that balance their perimeter protection specification with their budget and operational requirements, and enable them to manage their residual risk with appropriate security policies, procedures and personnel and training.
Q: If there are gaps in clarity or inconsistencies in the existing standards, what would you suggest as potential solutions to improve the effectiveness and transparency of HVM testing standards?
JN: I believe the standards are clear, but a level of understanding is required to navigate the varied standards and to be clear on what they actually mean for each specification scenario. It is obviously imperative for anyone considering the deployment of HVM to have an assessment conducted by a trusted security company first, with the correct expertise and independent advice.
I am always conflicted about providing much more than a basic outline to anyone outside of the security industry. Potentially, it would be worth providing a guide for what the standards represent in terms of the letters and numbers for those who are not aware, but this is already open source and readily availably with a quick Google search. Giving too much information about the standards and what they mean not only risks helping those looking to cause harm, but could also lead to taking shortcuts to protecting their own assets, or giving unqualified advice to others, without sufficient training or experience to formulate a robust HVM strategy
Q: What are some of the key challenges that organisations will face when implementing effective perimeter security and HVM measures, if required to do so by Martyn’s Law?
JN: There has been much discussion about the cost and operational implications of implementing mitigation, so there will be some challenging conversations about compromise and it’s security professionals’ job to encourage their clients to prioritise people’s safety over any inconvenience of protecting them.
I worry that we will see box ticking by some and that those who are tasked with overseeing any new security measures may try to specify solutions without the proper training and awareness. There is a risk of mitigations being installed to the wrong standard, and being deployed improperly by untrained staff. HVM is not an off the shelf product – no matter how simple the design of some systems, we should never be in a situation where an untrained person is deploying it without expert training or supervision.
When it comes to temporary measures, all SAFECROWDS staff that work with any of our HVM solutions are trained directly by the manufacturer or through our Train the Trainer scheme to ensure that they not only have an understanding of the product, but also the reasoning behind why it is deployed and the importance of it.
The SIA as regulators will need to be fully aware of deployment requirements for each HVM system, understand penetration and debris distances, and understand what category of vehicle a measure is tested to in order to know if the solution can perform to the required level. It’s not enough for them to simply check that there is some kind of HVM in place. The specification and deployment should be checked against the information recorded during the risk assessment and security process prior to the HVM specification and deployment plan.
Q: How do you balance the need for robust security measures with the practicalities of maintaining open access and usability for legitimate users, such as in public spaces or corporate environments?
JN: This is a tough question that divides opinion. Personally, I believe that any security measures in place must be fit for purpose and specified based on a robust security and risk assessment. Unfortunately, security is often one of the last considerations for a business or event, which very rarely brings with it visible or quantifiable return on investment. Therefore, it can be a challenge to ensure that the security measures specified to the best possible standard of mitigation, deployed in the correct way and are operationally effective.
SAFECROWDS have had to negotiate this with clients, and it ultimately comes down to providing a solution that meets the standard we identified, that personnel are trained sufficiently, and that testing and exercising is carried out to maintain standards. Any security measure is only as effective as its user. By providing an integrated approach to security, SAFECROWDS can not only provide physical solutions but also the qualified and experienced staff to manage them.
Q: Can you share any real-world examples or case studies where your perimeter security/ HVM solutions have been successfully deployed to mitigate against hostile vehicle attacks?
JN: At Fulham FC we work in partnership with the club and provide a completely integrated approach with HVM, traffic management and canine expo, pyro and drug detection. Our team carried out a TVRA and VDA enabling us to advise the football club on the correct locations for temporary HVM on match days. We specified the ARX Stopper!™️ and RB50, which is installed by our fully trained technicians, who have also completed ACT, first aid, and customer service training.
Thanks to the service we provided throughout the 2023/24 football season, we’ve added to the security services we deliver at Fulham FC during the 2024/25 season, with canine explosives detection and canine pyrotechnics and drug detection services, including spiking substances, along with comprehensive traffic management/Zone Ex solutions.
This integrated approach means that we’re co-ordinating multiple operational requirements and mitigating multiple threats with a joined-up team and RAMS.
Q: Looking ahead, what trends do you foresee in the perimeter security and HVM space, and what recommendations would you offer to organisations seeking to enhance their defences against vehicle-borne threats?
JN: I hope to see a trend towards more training and preparedness. We have a saying at SAFECROWDS, ‘Your Awareness is Your Lifeline’ – by this we mean that people must be situationally aware of their surroundings. Building on the foundations of See Check and Notify (SCaN) training, SAFECROWDS provide training to our clients in Counter Terrorism, ensuring that staff are aware of plans and procedures, helping clients produce robust plans for different attack types, and what to do such as lockdown or evacuations. All our staff carry with them a SAFECROWDS security lanyard that covers initial actions in a CT incident, First Aid guidance and Suspicious package and person protocols and they have all been ACT and first aid trained, so that they know how to react in the event of an attack and can help with the response should the worst happen.
I would also advise any organisations seeking to enhance their defences against vehicle-borne threats to remember that vehicle attacks are not a stand-alone tactic; terrorists take an integrated and pragmatic approach to doing harm, so organisations need an integrated and pragmatic approach to protecting people. If your HVM prevents an attacker from driving into a crowd, that’s great, but what protection do you have in place for when the attacker gets out of the vehicle with a gun or a knife? What measures have you put in place to prevent hostile reconnaissance? The more we consider HVM as an important part of a solution, rather than a complete solution, the better.