Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[milkround]

The Mad Monk said:

MilkRound - when is your court case?

Is it the second week in September? Have you heard any more?

I don't want to give the exact date.

I actually did here something today. Even though I did a defence statement etc and the CPS have been asked repeatedly for any evidence they still have not given anything. So my solicitors have asked the magistrates court for a hearing so they can hopefully get some disclosure. I dont have to go to this hearing.

Its behind a joke really... I wouldn't be surprised if the cps hadn't even bothered to look at any of it themselves yet. In terms or disclosure all we have asked for is all the cctv footage and the recordings of the police calls. So it's not like I'm asking for anything they dont have on their own computers.

[milkround]

Dibble said:

It’s probably not a case of the CPS “not being bothered”, it’s probably more likely t9 be they’re as chronically understaffed as every other public service, which may well be why they’ve not got round to it yet. That’s not to say they shouldn’t comply with the time limits on pre-trial disclosure (they absolutely should, as should the Police), but for the OP, this is the only case he has to be concerned with. It’ll be one of many, many cases sitting on every Crown Prosecutor’s desk. I’d wager there will be similar delays in pre trial disclosure in each and every one of them. It’s less likely if it’s a “big job”, as they do tend to get looked at both earlier and more closely.

Despite it being (maybe almost) all consuming for the OP, this really is “minor” in the (CPS’s) grand scheme of things.

I get that. And I'd agree it's not really important to anyone other than me and people directly associated with me.

But as the solicitors have not asked the same magistrates for a hearing to force the cps to give disclosure - I presume that the cps will have to attend this. Which is more work for them than actually just sending it? Now if everyone is having to do this - it must mean there are loads of hearings which must cause havoc for the courts and the cps? (I have no idea if that's actually the case).

To me it seems so simple. My solicitor asks for the CCTV and the telephone calls. They send them as an attachment via email and it's all done in about 30 seconds. I am sure there is more to it than that. I think the solicitor even said they have a special online website to upload it to. I really don't understand how this is such hard work.

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

He didn't walk away from the "Assault" he walked away from the arrest. Of course that could have been unlawful which changes things. The arrest happened when the security guard told him he was not free to leave. See all the case law earlier in the thread. It would appear the request to call the police happened some time after that.

He never said I wasnt free to leave he actually said "show me your receipt" and "come with me". If he wanted to tell me I want free to leave he could have used those words or said I was under arrest.

All of that doesn't really matter. In his statement he says we never spoke at all in the store and i walked off blanking him. Even though you can clearly see me standing and speaking to him on the limited CCTV I've posted.

Now if only the police had gotten the other CCTV inside the store... the stuff they admitted on tape existed. The stuff I asked for from day 1.

At no point in his statement did he say I was under arrest. At no point in reality did he say it. It's a legal fiction after the fact to justify his behaviour.

He also says he never lays a finger on me. I really hope I get a copy of the full CCTV and the statements and then people on here can see for themselves. The saddest part is the police could have done this and didn't want to. They didn't want to speak to my partner either. They made their minds up and had no interest in looking at anything that could disprove their hypothesis.

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

What if there is no CCTV, in the store, that can help either way. Then it's what the SG saw and whether it would amount to reasonable grounds to suspect (A very low bar). Being assaulted doesn't mean you automatically get to assault others - "Self defence" is not the default action, if it can be avoided.
As for letting people leave and calling the police how does that work, how do you know what the availability of police is, where they are going and how they are leaving, until after the event. That's why the any person power specifically has:
causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.. Both of which apply if you think someone is leaving with stuff that belongs to you.
I would definitely suggest trusting a legal professional over most of the stuff on here.

Of course there was CCTV that could help! In fact there there over 10 cameras which would show if I paid for my goods and walked out. Rather than walking from another direction.

I'm being really careful not to insult the police. Recently we have seen what they have to face to protect people and your property with horrendous consequences. Whilst most at night would hide from burglars they risk their lives rushing towards them. But I wont insult a single officer on here by thinking if they were told a suspected thief had walked from the wrong way out and attacked a security gaurd they would have asked for the footage showing this. It's the most obvious thing... showing I look like a thief etc. They didn't get it for a reason.

If the footage showed me paying and walking to the doors (as it would) then justifying him shoving me, kicking me and grabbing me is much harder. So they chose to at best not look at it, and worst not collect it after seeing it.

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

So it would seem but quite a few people now, who have seen everyone's explanation and the CCTV don't agree, It could be that this is a one off. If not either the security guard does this kind of thing often and has got away with it or, he really did suspect that the OP had not paid.

Respectfully that doesn't really matter.

The suspicion has to be based on some real and objective thing. Not just a hunch. And certainly not fantasy tales of me ignoring him etc.

As it stands he claims his suspicion comes from me walking the wrong way (proveably false) and my ignoring him (proveably false).

Now even if he were being totally honest - it would be like a Police officer arresting you for walking the wrong way down the street, and not wanting to follow him to his car. When no offence had been commited! How do you think a custody Sergeant would react if any PC took someone in for those reasons?

People keep saying reasonable suspicion is a low bar. And it is. But someone looking a bit dodgy and not obeying your commands doesn't overcome that very low bar. According to the legal experts I've spoken to in real life.

[milkround]

faa77 said:

Hi Milky,

Were you charged with assault **because** they believe it was a valid Citizen's Arrest?

Have they indicated had it been an invalid arrest, you were the one being assaulted?

No they didn't mate. They didn't indicate or speculate on anything.

[milkround]

Thesprucegoose said:

milkround said:

.. not fantasy tales of me ignoring him etc.
.. my ignoring him (proveably false).

You posted this at the start which kinda implies you did ignore him though...

milkround said:

so am told very firmly come with me. At this point, I have no inclination to come with anyone so walk out. I'd paid for my shopping. I'd done nothing wrong. If he'd asked nicely it might have been different - but I take my civil liberties very seriously.

In my book there is a difference between not doing as requested and ignoring.

I'm about to go to out of a secure warehouse. I'm currently being loaded. I can ask for a copy of the security notice (it will be emailed anyway - but I should have it really) if they say no I cant ring my office and say I've asked and I was blanked. I'd call and say I asked and they explained they didn't want to give me one. If I was asked to write a report afterwards I certainly wouldn't say 'they ignorws me and walked straight past without saying anything' as it would be untrue and I'd look a fool when the company said otherwise.

[milkround]

hutchst said:

It may be relevant because milkround himself (26th July) has confirmed that he is still running with the argument that the security guard had no lawful grounds to try and arrest (detain) him, and is doggedly pursuing CCTV evidence that he believes will exonerate him.

Sort of. But I dont know the legal side of it.

My argument is he had no right to put his hands on me. He didn't say why he did so. And he acted in such a way because he lost his temper. All of which I truly believe.

I'm also arguing that he assaulted me repeatedly and the only level of force I used is a shove which I did after trying to back away from him. And I only did that as I'd been knocked down and believed a further more serious assault was imminent which I could not get away from.

I want the cctv as it will show conclusively if I did things which I dispute. Whilst people can be mistaken, and mistakes are an unfortunate part of life - I fail to see how you can mistake which way someone walks from when your purpose is to stand there and watch for it. I also think it brings into question the validity of other statements made.

Namely the same CCTV would show if the witness did indeed enter and leave the store as he states. The cctv I have seems to show that isn't possible. If the witness was not outside he could not see what he claims and that really is important.

I might be totally wrong. And the courts might decide I'm totally guilty. I've rolled the dice and will have to see.

[milkround]

Red Devil said:

Point 2. Given that the self-service checkouts provide the customer with the option not to have one, the lack thereof cannot per se give rise to a reasonable suspicion.
Point 3. I asked the question a long time ago, how did the OP manage to forget, in such a short space of time, that he had in fact pressed 'yes' on the touch screen and taken the receipt?

I could be wrong (tbh I cba to go back through 100+ pages) but I don't think we have yet been given a satisfactory answer to that.

I'm really not sure why this aspect is still being so assiduously raked over. The OP is facing a charge of assault, not theft. Therefore I'm unclear how any of the above is relevant.
I'm fairly sure his legal advisor/s won't be wasting time on extraneous stuff. If I have understood correctly, the OP's argument will be self-defence.

Point 3 I cant answer as I dont know.

All I can do is tell the truth. I didn't think I took one. I never did. All I liken it to is looking for your car keys and after ages finding them in your pocket. Or searching for your glasses and finding them on your head.

[milkround]

the tribester said:

My experience of deliveries at large supermarkets is that they use a 'goods in' entrance, usually away from the entrance and self service tills, so I doubt the OP had any understanding of the system.
I'm sure he does now though.

I'm not about to argue. But how great is your experience?

You are correct at large stores you will reverse onto a bay. And that will be a goods in entrance. At smaller stores you will pull up outside and the staff will take it from the tailift.

But do you not think we go through the back of the stores when we are going to the toilet or canteen? Or when we are on a break and want to walk into the actual store to buy a sandwich?

At tesco your paid one pound (I think) for a colleague card. That you loaded money on to but stuff from the canteens as they are cashless. You got free tea and coffee if you used this card in any staff area from the machines. As sainsburys they have closed down most of the in store staff canteens but again youd do to staff rooms just to get a cup of tea or to fill up your water.

So yes you do go past the security rooms where they hold suspects. You also go past the CCTV room (usually blacked out screen but left open a lot).

What's more I've never met a supermarket delivery driver who wasnt hot on where the cameras are. Back door staff usually tell you. Supermarkets have so many silly rules that you need to know just to get the job done. An example of which is sainsburys insisting to put safety straps around cages when in a yard... try tipping a tri axle if you follow that rule when the bay is down. Youd be there hours and would run out of hours.

[milkround]

Greendubber said:

1. Its a pre paid card for buying food in the staff cafe. I put a tenner on mine and it never ran out.

2. When I was brand new and out of the box we had a massive Tesco on patch. We used to deal with the shoplifters so we're always in there getting CCTV etc. Our team had a good relationship with the manager so we used to pop into the regular punters cafe for refs or a quick coffee whilst taking statements, we also used to do neighbourhood meetings there with residents. The manager offered us the cards and said we were welcome to use the staff cafe if we wanted to.

3. You could have whatever you wanted,I think it was about 15p per item (this is a while ago) so if you wanted 2 slices of toast and 25 slices of bacon then so be it. The old dear on the till was the mum of a Sgt at our station so she loved us going in. I think she had a good relationship with the bakery as she always used to send us off with cakes to take back to the nick to dish out.

A few Morrisons allow the police use of their staff cafe these days too, you can get a decent breakfast and a brew for about £2.50 or at lunch time a proper meal such as lasagna and chips for about £3.00.

Good times (obviously declared and authorised)

If you ever get the chance to go to a big dc then it's even better. Real cooks cooking all sorts of meals all at cheap cheap prices.

Sainsburys dcs were even better. Food was honestly above pub grade quality. At xmas it was free and management would serve us. Even got a cracker. And I was just longish term agency.

This is 1000% not meant as a dig. But your comments about management and staff relations are half my idea why the police were not so keen to really look at the sg. I might be totally wrong. But my feelings were they wanted to make it go away both because it was annoying for them, and also because it risked rocking the boat. Other things enforced this view- like the pc saying they dont go out for shoplifting so let their security gaurd colleagues deal with that.

Ps is anyone wants a free Tesco staff card with about 6 quid on it PM me your address and I'll bang it in the post. It's only useful to those who have access to the staff canteens.

[milkround]

carinaman said:

I suspect some large companies that employ many HGV drivers advise them to walk around the site during part of their break to help reduce risks of Deep Vein Thrombosis from being sat in a cab for hours at a time.

I suspect that if you tried walking around anything other than the drivers rooms at many big companies youd be banned and escorted from site.

I'm thinking about supermarkets and the amazons specifically. They take your keys. Lock your wheels. And confine you to a dingy room (not amazing that's a pretty nice room actually). You might be stuck in that room for very many hours with no chance of sleep or rest. And they wonder why people are not lining up to do the job.

Sainsburys was different. We had a gym onsite. We could use it on our breaks or even when waiting as a spare driver as long as you kept your phone on. But that was just for people working for them. Visiting drivers delivering got the usual inhumane treatment.

[milkround]

Dibble said:

Any chance you can answer my questions about the “missing” CCTV, OP?

Sorry dibble.

To be totally honest I dont know if the police actually got the cctv or not. In my interview the officer said it would exist and it would remove uncertainty.

If they have then its not been passed on. Once I actually know for sure after I get the disclosure I can say with more certainty. If it has been collected etc I'll be happy. If not I'll have to live with it. Tesco didn't give me that footage when I did my sar even though I explicitly asked for it.

[milkround]

Red Devil said:

I think your car keys analogy is flawed. I very much doubt it was 'ages' between your leaving the till and exiting the store. A few minutes at most.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you're in danger of becoming confused/distracted. If I were your solicitor that would concern me.
What is needed is laser like focus on what you are being charged with and rebutting that.

Listen to your solicitor and follow his/her advice (hopefully he/she is on the ball). That's what you're paying a professional for: to represent you in court.

I do see your point. But I can only answer it honestly even if that makes me look foolish. I didn't think I had one but I did. It was me who got it but I still cant actually remember getting it. I know that sounds odd.

[milkround]

Christmassss said:

They wouldn't be allowed to hand you CCTV footage.

CCTV Basics -

The CCTV owner might not be allowed to share any footage if:

other people can be seen in it
they’re not able to edit out people to protect their identity

The CCTV owner can invite you to a viewing of the footage if:

they’re unable to provide you with the footage itself
you agree with that arrangement
They can refuse your request if sharing the footage will put a criminal investigation at risk.

But they did give me some footage with others blurred out. It's just the bit I really want they didn't hand over.

[milkround]

hutchst said:

milkround said:

I do see your point. But I can only answer it honestly even if that makes me look foolish. I didn't think I had one but I did. It was me who got it but I still cant actually remember getting it. I know that sounds odd.

When you say odd, do you mean suspicious?

No mate. I meant odd as in I cant explain how my mind works.

It might be suspicious to some. But what does it make you suspicious off? Unless you think I decided to not show him a receipt in the hope it would kick off.

[milkround]

The Mad Monk said:

He hasn't mentioned the homosexuality allegations since about page 1.

He won't respond to questions about his homosexuality (alleged).

I bet he is wishing he had stopped, shown the SG his receipt and then gone home.

Actually what I said was that I didn't want to list each word on here which was said. As it adds nothing to the conversation, and it's no ones business really.

Everything is alleged. If you are thinking I'm being untruthful you are totally entitled to that viewpoint. But it doesn't mean it's correct.

I wish I could change many things. Looking back I wish I got a takeaway and never left the house. I wish I'd taken my phone with me and I'd have called the Police myself there and then. I wish I'd chosen to go to another late night supermarket. I didn't think I had a receipt. And I don't regret not randomly following a bloke who decided to attack me for no good reason, and who then proceeded to tell a pack of lies.

[milkround]

Big thanks to everyone who has commented. Both positively and not so positively. I've taken the decision to go back to leaving this alone until after the trial or something actually happens. I'll update properly then. Until then it's just going around in circles and I don't think I can really contribute.

Hope everyone enjoys the Sun and has a great bank holiday weekend.

[milkround]

Was going to leave this alone...

But: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/243.h...

"(i) that the constable actually believed that arrest was necessary, and for a [s.24(5)] reason; and
(ii) that objectively that belief was reasonable."
It was also recognised, in that case at [22], that in answering the appropriate questions, the court will always be concerned with the facts as known to the officer making the arrest. That serves to highlight the distinction between the test to be applied here and that applicable in a public law context. The officer will need to take into account relevant facts – but only in so far as they are known to him."

So it's a two-stage test. Firstly the person needs to genuinely think it. Then it needs to be objectively reasonable as Red points out.

The facts at the time thing are relevant. Those saying the arrest happened at the point of him saying 'come with me' - would have to say it's reasonable to arrest someone simply for not having a receipt when the shop gives you the option of not having one.

Those saying that me leaving gives grounds to arrest are in a bit of black hole. If you are free to leave (arrest is the deprivation of your liberty) and you chose to exercise that right, it can't in itself be grounds to then arrest you. Otherwise you were never free in the first place. Which is why what is known at the time is important.

When you got to a voluntary interview like me - if the Police have the right to arrest and you leave they can. Because they have the necessity to arrest at that point. It doesn't apply to 'other persons' as per the legislation. And what's more - they could arrest before but it wasn't necessary.

[milkround]

faa77 said:

Red 4 said:

You don't need to be imprisoned.

I think some people are of the opinion that you need to be locked up behind bars for the offence to be complete.

Any unlawful deprivation of a person's free movement (no matter how brief) fits too.

Some people refer to it as "wrongful arrest", etc but the offence is defined as false imprisonment.

Okay but assault in addition to this?

Assault is the application of force without lawful authority. An arrest is the deprivation of liberty with lawful authority.

If someone is committing an offense generally you can both deprive them of their liberty and also use force. The force has to be reasonable and necessary, the arrest just has to be reasonable. So you can't stab a shoplifter etc. `But you can hold them until a Police Officer comes along.

However, for both you need to have 'reasonable suspicion'. The arrest/detention comes from pace section 24a. The use of force comes from section 3 of the criminal law act 1967. To use section 3 of the act a lawful arrest has to be taking place so pace 24a comes into play.

Reasonable suspicion isn't that hard to get. See someone taking your stuff and you have it. In this case his reasonable suspicion is simply seeing me walk the wrong way and me saying I have no receipt. He never claims to see an offence being committed. He never claims to see me taking something. IMO he jumped the gun and made a mistake. It went wrong for everyone (many people at fault including me) and he has lied to save his job. He is probably more worried about all this than me. I don't want to see a man out of work - but he has lied and is putting my liberty at risk, so I have no sympathy now.

So if the arrest is unlawful - then by default any use of force is unlawful. Generally, for a mistake the CPS won't consider it in the public interest to prosecute (rightly imo). But that does not protect the person or company from civil action.

So basically - if the arrest is unlawful then any use of force or making someone fear force is unlawful. Which is why Red and me have focussed on this. Both assault and unlawful detention are offences against the person. Which have a statutory defence of self defence. As soon as I say these words it's for the CPS to prove I wasn't defending myself, or I acting in the over the top way.

Right now I just need to create reasonable doubt to any of this. The CPS need to prove it all within reasonable doubt. If after it's over I want to start civil action it's for the SG's employers to show he was acting lawfully. Which is partly why I feel I'll never get the CCTV. Not only will it prove me innocent. But it will sink them in terms of a civil action. Hence why Tesco didn't actually give me the CCTV I asked for and took liberties.

Edit - just to add. Even if someone is assaulting you, and unlawfully detaining you. It doesn't mean you can deck them. You can still only use force when you feel you need to defend yourself. And it has to be proportionate. If I'd stamped on his head and beaten him up even if a court felt he was acting unlawfully I'd still be guilty both criminally and civilly of assault.

Edited by milkround on Sunday 25th August 23:32