Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[Seight_Returns]

It's not stirring the pot - but the argument is becoming circular.

There doesn't need to be evidence of criminal activity to justify the SG's challenge - just an honestly held belief that there was.

The OP has provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for the dance with the bin - but I can also see how someone watching could see it at suspicious.

My wife is both a serial supermarket bargain bagger and a stander upper for her rights - if she'd made a special trip to a store to buy a bin she'd seen advertised at a great price - she'd be making a scene demanding that they sell it to her for that price, not just meekly putting it back on the shelf. But of course everyone behaves differently.

[milkround]

Seight_Returns said:

It's not stirring the pot - but the argument is becoming circular.

There doesn't need to be evidence of criminal activity to justify the SG's challenge - just an honestly held belief that there was.

The OP has provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for the dance with the bin - but I can also see how someone watching could see it at suspicious.

My wife is both a serial supermarket bargain bagger and a stander upper for her rights - if she'd made a special trip to a store to buy a bin she'd seen advertised at a great price - she'd be making a scene demanding that they sell it to her for that price, not just meekly putting it back on the shelf. But of course everyone behaves differently.

Fair enough. I get that.

But the SG never said 'I saw the girl doing X and the male doing Y which raised my suspicion'. He said he saw ME walk from the wrong direction and as he tried to speak to me I totally blanked him an walked off. Both of these things are untrue. I get mistakes can happen and memories can get confused.

However - if he genuinely thought we had been stealing. Why not simply say 'excuse me, can you wait here the Police are on the way as I believe you have been shoplifting'? Rather than show me your receipt and other such stuff. If his level of suspicion was not great enough to call the police is it really great enough to arrest/detain? I don't know the answer to that. Which is why I ask.

[Greendubber]

milkround said:

Seight_Returns said:

It's not stirring the pot - but the argument is becoming circular.

There doesn't need to be evidence of criminal activity to justify the SG's challenge - just an honestly held belief that there was.

The OP has provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for the dance with the bin - but I can also see how someone watching could see it at suspicious.

My wife is both a serial supermarket bargain bagger and a stander upper for her rights - if she'd made a special trip to a store to buy a bin she'd seen advertised at a great price - she'd be making a scene demanding that they sell it to her for that price, not just meekly putting it back on the shelf. But of course everyone behaves differently.

Fair enough. I get that.

But the SG never said 'I saw the girl doing X and the male doing Y which raised my suspicion'. He said he saw ME walk from the wrong direction and as he tried to speak to me I totally blanked him an walked off. Both of these things are untrue. I get mistakes can happen and memories can get confused.

However - if he genuinely thought we had been stealing. Why not simply say 'excuse me, can you wait here the Police are on the way as I believe you have been shoplifting'? Rather than show me your receipt and other such stuff. If his level of suspicion was not great enough to call the police is it really great enough to arrest/detain? I don't know the answer to that. Which is why I ask.

Police are not called to every shop theft. Civil recovery, store bans, good returned etc happen all the time without the police having to be called. A lot of supermarkets deal with things themselves as they are relatively low value, goods are often recovered in a condition that allows them to go back on the shelf etc. That is up to the point you don't have cooperation, although it seems it's an assault being reported not a theft in your situation.

[Pica-Pica]

milkround said:

.

However - if he genuinely thought we had been stealing. Why not simply say 'excuse me, can you wait here the Police are on the way as I believe you have been shoplifting'? Rather than show me your receipt and other such stuff. If his level of suspicion was not great enough to call the police is it really great enough to arrest/detain? I don't know the answer to that. Which is why I ask.

You really have to ask that? You really have to question why he should, in preference, say ‘excuse me while I call the police’..?

[milkround]

Pica-Pica said:

milkround said:

.

However - if he genuinely thought we had been stealing. Why not simply say 'excuse me, can you wait here the Police are on the way as I believe you have been shoplifting'? Rather than show me your receipt and other such stuff. If his level of suspicion was not great enough to call the police is it really great enough to arrest/detain? I don't know the answer to that. Which is why I ask.

You really have to ask that? You really have to question why he should, in preference, say ‘excuse me while I call the police’..?

Well yeah... I'm no expert but it makes sense to me. At this point nothing was physical. I wasn't running. He could have shouted 'wait whilst the Police come'. And surely that was the end game anyway... If he was planning on detaining me using force then he'd have to call them at some point. You may as well seeing if that stops me first?

My point is that after he shoved me I asked for the Police to be called. I can't prove that. Only three people heard it. Me, him and my partner. But at this point surely it was the perfect time to pull out a phone and 999 it.

I'm no expert and have no experience but this makes sense to me. If I grabbed someone breaking into my car for example and they asked for the Police I'd be on the phone immediately.

[longblackcoat]

milkround said:

Well yeah... I'm no expert but it makes sense to me. At this point nothing was physical. I wasn't running. He could have shouted 'wait whilst the Police come'. And surely that was the end game anyway... If he was planning on detaining me using force then he'd have to call them at some point. You may as well seeing if that stops me first?

My point is that after he shoved me I asked for the Police to be called. I can't prove that. Only three people heard it. Me, him and my partner. But at this point surely it was the perfect time to pull out a phone and 999 it.

I'm no expert and have no experience but this makes sense to me. If I grabbed someone breaking into my car for example and they asked for the Police I'd be on the phone immediately.

The supermarkets don't want to waste police time. If they suspect someone of theft they check the bag (getting you to unpack it yourself), ascertain if anything's actually been stolen, then either apologise and thank you for cooperating, or call the police if it's above a certain amount. Tesco, I understand, have a "below £30" limit - I imagine all stores will operate some variant of this - where the police aren't called so long as the individual cooperates, pays up, and accepts a ban from their stores.

Imagine how many police would be needed if the police were called every time someone pinched a bag of sweets from a supermarket?

[hutchst]

Red Devil said:

That could easily be taken as implying they were up to no good. Do you have any actual evidence of criminal activity or are you just stirring the pot?

I was deliberately making a point about creating reasonable suspicion. People still seem to be fixated on whether milkround did anything wrong or not. That isn't the point. It didn't matter what he had or hadn't done, it's only what the guard thought he was doing that counts.

[milkround]

Is blackstones a respected company on legal affairs? This is from 2019: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRiMDwAAQBAJ&a...

And it's written by some highly qualified people.

Can't quote it but the bit at the end of page 90 and start of page 91 seems a bit relevant. I shall ask the solicitors. But just wondered what folk on here though. The quote is:

"If nobody has committed the offense, the arrest shall be unlawful even if they had reasonable grounds to suspect the person arrested was guilty".

Again I'm no expert. Google just threw this up.

Note that book also mentions Sowande. But draws different conclusions to what some on here have said. I am sure most on here are very highlty qualified etc but they have drew different conclusions to the authors.

Edited by milkround on Wednesday 22 May 10:45

[Greendubber]

milkround said:

Is blackstones a respected company on legal affairs? This is from 2019: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRiMDwAAQBAJ&a...

And it's written by some highly qualified people.

Can't quote it but the bit at the end of page 90 and start of page 91 seems a bit relevant. I shall ask the solicitors. But just wondered what folk on here though. The quote is:

"If nobody has committed the offense, the arrest shall be unlawful even if they had reasonable grounds to suspect the person arrested was guilty".

Again I'm no expert. Google just threw this up.

Did the security guard actually arrest you?

[milkround]

Greendubber said:

Did the security guard actually arrest you?

I don't know. I was asking generally as many on here said that a crime doesn't need to have been committed. I found that which disputes that. I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I am just asking a question - no offense intended.

In his statement, he said he was stopping me leaving. Putting his arms out. He also did the same to my partner. He never said in his statement he was arresting me. The Police just said it would be up to a court to decide.

I think I get the Sowande thing now. It's about section 3 vs pace 24a. Even though the use of force can be lawful the arrest is not. I may be totally wrong.

[Greendubber]

milkround said:

Greendubber said:

Did the security guard actually arrest you?

I don't know. I was asking generally as many on here said that a crime doesn't need to have been committed. I found that which disputes that. I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I am just asking a question - no offense intended.

In his statement, he said he was stopping me leaving. Putting his arms out. He also did the same to my partner. He never said in his statement he was arresting me. The Police just said it would be up to a court to decide.

I think I get the Sowande thing now. It's about section 3 vs pace 24a. Even though the use of force can be lawful the arrest is not. I may be totally wrong.

No offence taken at all. I was going to suggest that an arrest wouldn't have to take place for the guard to lawfully lay hands on you (Sec 3 as you mentioned)

[Red 4]

Seight_Returns said:

It's not stirring the pot - but the argument is becoming circular.

There doesn't need to be evidence of criminal activity to justify the SG's challenge - just an honestly held belief that there was.

Incorrect.

It's an objective test. Either the grounds are reasonable or they're not.
The clue is in the wording.

You are confusing reasonable grounds with the law on use of force/ self defence (which relies on an honestly held belief).

Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 22 May 12:00

[Red 4]

milkround said:

Is blackstones a respected company on legal affairs? This is from 2019: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRiMDwAAQBAJ&a...

And it's written by some highly qualified people.

Can't quote it but the bit at the end of page 90 and start of page 91 seems a bit relevant. I shall ask the solicitors. But just wondered what folk on here though. The quote is:

"If nobody has committed the offense, the arrest shall be unlawful even if they had reasonable grounds to suspect the person arrested was guilty".

Again I'm no expert. Google just threw this up.

Note that book also mentions Sowande. But draws different conclusions to what some on here have said. I am sure most on here are very highlty qualified etc but they have drew different conclusions to the authors.

Edited by milkround on Wednesday 22 May 10:45

That is dealing with the past tense - if no offence has been committed then the arrest is unlawful.

If an offence is being committed - present tense - then reasonable grounds to suspect an offence is being committed is OK.

See s.24 PACE and note the subtle difference.

[carinaman]

milkround said:

Is blackstones a respected company on legal affairs? This is from 2019: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WRiMDwAAQBAJ&a...

And it's written by some highly qualified people.

I reckon so:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Blackstones-Criminal-La...

Though PACE is probably in the Public Law one:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Blackstones-statute-ser...


I'd recommend going with what your Solicitor says. They'll have passed the exams and have experience. They'll have the Statute Books and the Tee Shirt.

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 22 May 11:33

[xjay1337]

Jeez, 80 pages later we are still non the wiser.

[carinaman]

It's trial by Social Media. Just like in the real world the wheels of justice turn slowly.

[ElectricPics]

Going back to the reasonable suspicion, wouldn't that simply come down to an SG seeing someone hide an item about their person or in a bag other than a shopping basket or trolley, either with their own eyes or more likely on the store CCTV? I don't think any other suspicion could be reasonable.

[speedking31]

ElectricPics said:

Going back to the reasonable suspicion, wouldn't that simply come down to an SG seeing someone hide an item about their person or in a bag other than a shopping basket or trolley, either with their own eyes or more likely on the store CCTV? I don't think any other suspicion could be reasonable.

Hence SCONE.

[speedking31]

hutchst said:

I was deliberately making a point about creating reasonable suspicion. People still seem to be fixated on whether milkround did anything wrong or not. That isn't the point. It didn't matter what he had or hadn't done, it's only what the guard thought he was doing that counts.

But the CCTV might corroborate the SG's statement of what caused his suspicion to be raised. If it doesn't then there is proof that he couldn't have reasonable grounds on the basis of his statement.

[Rewe]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/05/2...

Dunno, perhaps ask Milky?