Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
milkround said:
Also imo people are missing one thing. I have not been charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. Which is either really clever or really silly of the police (cps did not authorise charge in my case it was ps). I've been charged with common assault.
Why would they want to try and prove intent which would make it more difficult for no real extra gain. Milkround will have to convince the magistrates that he forgot all about having a receipt 30 seconds after picking it up from the till. Thats going to be tough. Everything that followed was based on the answer he gave to the security guard when he asked to look at it.
Even if he did genuinely forget, are the Magistrates really going to condemn the security guard for not believing him if he saw him take it from the machine?
Even if he did genuinely forget, are the Magistrates really going to condemn the security guard for not believing him if he saw him take it from the machine?
Edited by hutchst on Wednesday 15th May 14:27
Petrus1983 said:
I’m not asking this in a facetious way, but now you’re a few weeks down the road do you still feel it’s worth all the aggravation it’s brought?
No it's not. I'd rather just get on with my life. It's annoying more than anything. But I can't change it. So I live with what I have in front of me.
La Liga said:
milkround said:
Also imo people are missing one thing. I have not been charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. Which is either really clever or really silly of the police (cps did not authorise charge in my case it was ps). I've been charged with common assault.
Why would they want to try and prove intent which would make it more difficult for no real extra gain. The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
hutchst said:
Milkround will have to convince the magistrates that he forgot all about having a receipt 30 seconds after picking it up from the till. Thats going to be tough. Everything that followed was based on the answer he gave to the security guard when he asked to look at it.
Even if he did genuinely forget, are the Magistrates really going to condemn the security guard for not believing him if he saw him take it from the machine?
The security guard did not say he saw him take a receipt from the machine.Even if he did genuinely forget, are the Magistrates really going to condemn the security guard for not believing him if he saw him take it from the machine?
Edited by hutchst on Wednesday 15th May 14:27
Quite the opposite in fact.
Still, let's not let the facts get in the way, eh ?
milkround said:
Petrus1983 said:
I’m not asking this in a facetious way, but now you’re a few weeks down the road do you still feel it’s worth all the aggravation it’s brought?
No it's not. I'd rather just get on with my life. It's annoying more than anything. But I can't change it. So I live with what I have in front of me.
davek_964 said:
Red 4 said:
Fair enough.
I've never used it and was unsure how it works.
If the "random checks" are before payment is made that would appear OK.
I thought people were being randomly stopped after they had paid for the goods - which would amount to a search.
To be honest, even if I'd been stopped after paying I would have complied. I've never used it and was unsure how it works.
If the "random checks" are before payment is made that would appear OK.
I thought people were being randomly stopped after they had paid for the goods - which would amount to a search.
I'm one of the people who simply doesn't get the OPs behaviour in this thread. Shops sell stuff - people steal stuff. A perfectly reasonable request to check whether I've nicked something seems fair to me - whether it's lawful or not, it would hardly cause me significant inconvenience.
What do people do when they're leaving the store and the sensors go off? Surely that must have happened to everybody at one time or another? Do you really tell them they have no right to search you and continue walking through the exit?
Bearing in mind that the opening remark would be yours, not mine.
The sensors going off is a completely different kettle from the OP's encounter. If they did it would be nonsensical for anyone other than a thief to keep walking.
I've never ever had sensors go off. Maybe I've just been lucky, or I'm a statistical outlier.
While Sowande may have overturned Self it is important to understand that each case turns on its own facts.
The OP's solicitor is in a far better position than anyone on here to know what his chances are and will no doubt act accordingly.
The criminal standard will apply. The court must persuaded 'so that it is sure' rather than 'more likely than not'.
Some posters seem quite confident that the OP will be found guilty. Even to the extent of predicting the percentage of those who think so.
I'm not making any bets on the outcome without hearing all the evidence from both sides. It may even hinge on the quality of each of the advocates.
Red Devil said:
While Sowande may have overturned Self it is important to understand that each case turns on its own facts.
.
Sowande has not completely overturned Self..
People are getting hung up on this but there are subtle differences between the cases.
Committing/ reasonable grounds to suspect to be committing - citizens power of arrest
Committed ... Self still stands.
Section 24(a) PACE is pretty unambiguous.
milkround said:
La Liga said:
milkround said:
Also imo people are missing one thing. I have not been charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. Which is either really clever or really silly of the police (cps did not authorise charge in my case it was ps). I've been charged with common assault.
Why would they want to try and prove intent which would make it more difficult for no real extra gain. The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
milkround said:
The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Here you go again. That relates to assault police in the execution of their duty... Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Sometimes police get assaulted when not in the execution of their duty. E. G helping a publican eject a drunk etc.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 16:57
Graveworm said:
Here you go again. That relates to assault police in the execution of their duty...
Sometimes police get assaulted when not in the execution of their duty. E. G helping a publican eject a drunk etc. Its got nothing to do with self defence..
The op is saying he (possibly) wasn't charged with assault with intent to resist arrest because there were no grounds for arrest.Sometimes police get assaulted when not in the execution of their duty. E. G helping a publican eject a drunk etc. Its got nothing to do with self defence..
It's a different offence to assault police ( as I'm sure you know).
Red 4 said:
Red Devil said:
While Sowande may have overturned Self it is important to understand that each case turns on its own facts.
.
Sowande has not completely overturned Self..
People are getting hung up on this but there are subtle differences between the cases.
Committing/ reasonable grounds to suspect to be committing - citizens power of arrest
Committed ... Self still stands.
Section 24(a) PACE is pretty unambiguous.
We simply don't know all the facts/evidence which will be presented in the OP's case.
Those are what will determine the outcome. Hopefully his solicitor is sharp as a razor.
Back on the scan and shop systems and checks. Whilst we definitely use them when available, a regular user knows the foibles of the system which throws wobbles and could create questions if it comes to checks throwing up an issue.
Eg Tesco system, when you get to the end you scan a barcode on a till and it transfers your list by WiFi. Sometimes it completely fails to connect and there's all sorts of shenanigans trying to get it to connect. When done often then the total amount of the bill is less than was shown on the machine at the end of the shop, that's not just due to discounts btw, and it's clear to us when we've gone through the detail that it's just not transferred stuff properly.
Then again you can be selected for a check and we've had the assistant lose the whole lot off the handset and had to scan our entire shop through a normal till.
Sainsbury's, their system loses WiFi contact as you go round the store, and you suddenly notice there's a warning message about having to go through a normal till. So far we have managed to get it to reconnect before it times out but what happens if you don't notice and just carry on zapping away.
There are other glitches but would take too long to cover them. I'm sure there will be some folk who worked out loopholes, and as others have mentioned certain types simply regard it as gaming the system. Supermarkets rely on most folk being honest as basic instinct.
Eg Tesco system, when you get to the end you scan a barcode on a till and it transfers your list by WiFi. Sometimes it completely fails to connect and there's all sorts of shenanigans trying to get it to connect. When done often then the total amount of the bill is less than was shown on the machine at the end of the shop, that's not just due to discounts btw, and it's clear to us when we've gone through the detail that it's just not transferred stuff properly.
Then again you can be selected for a check and we've had the assistant lose the whole lot off the handset and had to scan our entire shop through a normal till.
Sainsbury's, their system loses WiFi contact as you go round the store, and you suddenly notice there's a warning message about having to go through a normal till. So far we have managed to get it to reconnect before it times out but what happens if you don't notice and just carry on zapping away.
There are other glitches but would take too long to cover them. I'm sure there will be some folk who worked out loopholes, and as others have mentioned certain types simply regard it as gaming the system. Supermarkets rely on most folk being honest as basic instinct.
milkround said:
Because arresting someone allows you to use a level of force and to try and stop someone leaving. As a normal person (not a police officer) you can't do that unless you are arresting them. So for the CPS to say 'the SG was acting lawfully' they are going to be faced with my solicitor saying 'then why didn't the CPS charge with that...'.
The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Don't forget milkround that if you had been charged with a s38 OAPA 1861 offence you could ask for a crown court and a jury.The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Where as a common assault leaves you at the mercy of the Magistrates.
It's called strategic charging.
Red 4 said:
The op is saying he (possibly) wasn't charged with assault with intent to resist arrest because there were no grounds for arrest.
It's a different offence to assault police ( as I'm sure you know).
Yep, but the section in the charging standards - he quoted was from S89 Police Act not S38 OAPA. Hence why I said it wasn't the same thing. It's a different offence to assault police ( as I'm sure you know).
Red Devil said:
The sensors going off is a completely different kettle from the OP's encounter. If they did it would be nonsensical for anyone other than a thief to keep walking.
That might be true - but I mentioned it because people were stating that it was illegal for the guard to search you / search the items once they were paid for. Since the sensors are after you've paid for your shopping, I was questioning whether these people simply continue out the exit maintaining that it's illegal to check their shopping.Graveworm said:
milkround said:
The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Here you go again. That relates to assault police in the execution of their duty... Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
Sometimes police get assaulted when not in the execution of their duty. E. G helping a publican eject a drunk etc.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 16:57
La Liga said:
milkround said:
La Liga said:
milkround said:
Also imo people are missing one thing. I have not been charged with assault with intent to resist arrest. Which is either really clever or really silly of the police (cps did not authorise charge in my case it was ps). I've been charged with common assault.
Why would they want to try and prove intent which would make it more difficult for no real extra gain. The reason for the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest and assault police are there for a reason. Indeed to the CPS even say to be really really careful if you can't change with assault police due to self defence arguments:
Where evidence that the officer was acting in the execution of his or her duty is insufficient, but proceedings for an assault are nevertheless warranted, the appropriate charge will be under s39. In such circumstances, the evidence will need to be carefully assessed so as to ensure that it can clearly be established that the suspect was not acting in self-defence.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-aga...
milkround said:
The same argument could be made for assault police. Why ever bother to charge with that when you need to prove the officer was acting within their lawful authority? Sentencing is the same in that case. So using the same line of thinking why do the CPS/Police ever charge with assault police?
You don't have to prove it was with authority, you have to prove it was their duty easy enough to prove as a matter of law, or disprove now the case law has been settled.When they charge with assault police, it has a higher sentencing guidelines than common assault BUT they don't need to prove any extra INTENT on the part of the person carrying out the assault.
If they had charged, assault with intent to resist, then that would also have harsher sentencing guidelines and maximum penalty, in your case, but they would need to prove that it was your intent when you assaulted them NOT just that you were being lawfully arrested.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 15th May 19:54
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff