Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Ructions said:
caziques said:
The prosecution has to release all evidence they intend to rely on some time before the hearing (not sure of the time scales in the UK).
Do not rely on the prosecution for anything, like the police, their job is to secure a conviction. It’s not unknown for them to conveniently lose evidence.The OP is asking for (I assume other) CCTV and the calls to 999. The investigator and the CPS should review that and all relevant material in their possession to see if it assists the defence or undermines the prosecution. If they decide that it does, then they have to give it to the defence.
The defence don't get anything just by asking for it but a judge/magistrate can order they are given it anyway. This system has led to a number of well known miscarriage of justice cases but it came about because of the way the legal profession charge and the volume of material that now exists.
Ructions said:
caziques said:
I reckon it will be dropped as well, then go after the CPS for full costs - (which, of course, may involve another hearing).
Good luck with that.Of course the OP’s solicitor will suggest this, but he will expect be paid before any hearing.
Edited by Graveworm on Saturday 17th August 09:55
Hi Milky,
Ignore a lot of the ****s on here. Whilst you weren't the most-diplomatic at the time, I think you have conducted yourself very well throughout this thread.
Were you charged with assault because they believe it was a valid Citizen's Arrest? If so:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
If they cannot provide evidence that satisfies 1b and 2b, then they cannot claim a valid citizen's arrest was made, you were assaulted and acted in self-defence. For them to provide evidence, they would need to provide the CCTV tapes. Presumably this will show the store had no grounds to suspect theft?
I assume you cannot prove you offered to call the police? (if you can, this immediately proves 1b 2b and 3b were not satisfied). If this goes to court get your barrister to question the SG. Either he confirms it, or he risks perjuring himself.
I would also argue 3b). Why was it not practical for a police officer to make the arrest? Either you were driving out, or you were walking. If you were driving then they could just get your reg and if you were walking there was plenty of time to call the police.
Also, see this RE getting your costs back when you're found not guilty:
https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and...
and if the case is dropped surely you can take the SG to small claims court? His actions cost you money.
ps don't trust your solicitor or barrister, check everything yourself
Ignore a lot of the ****s on here. Whilst you weren't the most-diplomatic at the time, I think you have conducted yourself very well throughout this thread.
Were you charged with assault because they believe it was a valid Citizen's Arrest? If so:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
If they cannot provide evidence that satisfies 1b and 2b, then they cannot claim a valid citizen's arrest was made, you were assaulted and acted in self-defence. For them to provide evidence, they would need to provide the CCTV tapes. Presumably this will show the store had no grounds to suspect theft?
I assume you cannot prove you offered to call the police? (if you can, this immediately proves 1b 2b and 3b were not satisfied). If this goes to court get your barrister to question the SG. Either he confirms it, or he risks perjuring himself.
I would also argue 3b). Why was it not practical for a police officer to make the arrest? Either you were driving out, or you were walking. If you were driving then they could just get your reg and if you were walking there was plenty of time to call the police.
Also, see this RE getting your costs back when you're found not guilty:
https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and...
and if the case is dropped surely you can take the SG to small claims court? His actions cost you money.
ps don't trust your solicitor or barrister, check everything yourself
Edited by faa77 on Monday 19th August 00:30
Edited by faa77 on Monday 19th August 00:31
faa77 said:
Hi Milky,
Ignore a lot of the ****s on here. Whilst you weren't the most-diplomatic at the time, I think you have conducted yourself very well throughout this thread.
Were you charged with assault because they believe it was a valid Citizen's Arrest? If so:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
If they cannot provide evidence that satisfies 1b and 2b, then they cannot claim a valid citizen's arrest was made, you were assaulted and acted in self-defence. For them to provide evidence, they would need to provide the CCTV tapes. Presumably this will show the store had no grounds to suspect theft?
I assume you cannot prove you offered to call the police? (if you can, this immediately proves 1b 2b and 3b were not satisfied). If this goes to court get your barrister to question the SG. Either he confirms it, or he risks perjuring himself.
I would also argue 3b). Why was it not practical for a police officer to make the arrest? Either you were driving out, or you were walking. If you were driving then they could just get your reg and if you were walking there was plenty of time to call the police.
Also, see this RE getting your costs back when you're found not guilty:
https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and...
and if the case is dropped surely you can take the SG to small claims court? His actions cost you money.
ps don't trust your solicitor or barrister, check everything yourself
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. Ignore a lot of the ****s on here. Whilst you weren't the most-diplomatic at the time, I think you have conducted yourself very well throughout this thread.
Were you charged with assault because they believe it was a valid Citizen's Arrest? If so:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
If they cannot provide evidence that satisfies 1b and 2b, then they cannot claim a valid citizen's arrest was made, you were assaulted and acted in self-defence. For them to provide evidence, they would need to provide the CCTV tapes. Presumably this will show the store had no grounds to suspect theft?
I assume you cannot prove you offered to call the police? (if you can, this immediately proves 1b 2b and 3b were not satisfied). If this goes to court get your barrister to question the SG. Either he confirms it, or he risks perjuring himself.
I would also argue 3b). Why was it not practical for a police officer to make the arrest? Either you were driving out, or you were walking. If you were driving then they could just get your reg and if you were walking there was plenty of time to call the police.
Also, see this RE getting your costs back when you're found not guilty:
https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and...
and if the case is dropped surely you can take the SG to small claims court? His actions cost you money.
ps don't trust your solicitor or barrister, check everything yourself
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.
Graveworm said:
Being assaulted doesn't mean you automatically get to assault others - "Self defence" is not the default action, if it can be avoided.
The default action is walking away........ which Milky already did to avoid conflict. He was then followed by the SG and assaulted, both physically and verbally.The SG would be charged for assault if Milky had evidence he requested the police be called- you cannot refuse calling the police and then make a citizen's arrest.
Why didn't the SG call the police when Milky requested? Because he was after some "action".
kestral said:
Because the legal system in this Country is now a complete shambles from start to finish.
Just one example.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/apr/28/secr...
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/court-interprete...
The Secret Barrister's blog cuts to the chase - https://thesecretbarrister.com/
faa77 said:
The default action is walking away........ which Milky already did to avoid conflict. He was then followed by the SG and assaulted, both physically and verbally.
The SG would be charged for assault if Milky had evidence he requested the police be called- you cannot refuse calling the police and then make a citizen's arrest.
Why didn't the SG call the police when Milky requested? Because he was after some "action".
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. The SG would be charged for assault if Milky had evidence he requested the police be called- you cannot refuse calling the police and then make a citizen's arrest.
Why didn't the SG call the police when Milky requested? Because he was after some "action".
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 said:
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.
He doesn't have to say you are under arrest I posted the case law earlier. In your words he said very firmly come with me. Alderson V Booth Spicer V Holt and many many more. In Brosch a restaurant manager saying stay there was enough. 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.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 12:50
Graveworm said:
He doesn't have to say you are under arrest I posted the case law earlier. In your words he said very firmly come with me. Alderson V Booth Spicer V Holt and many many more.
Alderson v Booth - https://swarb.co.uk/alderson-v-booth-qbd-1969/That summary includes the words 'suspect', 'police officer' and 'bring to the defendant's notice that he was under compulsion'.
I'm not convinced that 'come with me' uttered by a private individual (wearing a company uniform) quite cuts the mustard.
Spicer v Holt - https://swarb.co.uk/spicer-v-holt-hl-1977/
Without more, I wouldn't regard a mere request to 'come with me' as that I was under any compulsion to do so and thereby deprived of my liberty.
This suggests that if the SG was making a citizen's arrest he must say why and what offence he believed the OP had committed.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/being-a-securi...
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/citizens-arrest/
I can't find anything from the OP's posts that suggests that actually took place.
We're now on page 117. On which one did you post the case law you mention above.please?
Red Devil said:
Alderson v Booth - https://swarb.co.uk/alderson-v-booth-qbd-1969/
That summary includes the words 'suspect', 'police officer' and 'bring to the defendant's notice that he was under compulsion'.
I'm not convinced that 'come with me' uttered by a private individual (wearing a company uniform) quite cuts the mustard.
Spicer v Holt - https://swarb.co.uk/spicer-v-holt-hl-1977/
Without more, I wouldn't regard a mere request to 'come with me' as that I was under any compulsion to do so and thereby deprived of my liberty.
This suggests that if the SG was making a citizen's arrest he must say why and what offence he believed the OP had committed.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/being-a-securi...
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/citizens-arrest/
I can't find anything from the OP's posts that suggests that actually took place.
We're now on page 117. On which one did you post the case law you mention above.please?
R.V Brosch is a nice one for this case. Restaurant manager saying "Stay there" amounted to an arrest. It was a post PACE case that maintained the status quo and also confirmed that this was in keeping with the Non Police exceptions to S28 requirements. That summary includes the words 'suspect', 'police officer' and 'bring to the defendant's notice that he was under compulsion'.
I'm not convinced that 'come with me' uttered by a private individual (wearing a company uniform) quite cuts the mustard.
Spicer v Holt - https://swarb.co.uk/spicer-v-holt-hl-1977/
Without more, I wouldn't regard a mere request to 'come with me' as that I was under any compulsion to do so and thereby deprived of my liberty.
This suggests that if the SG was making a citizen's arrest he must say why and what offence he believed the OP had committed.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/being-a-securi...
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/citizens-arrest/
I can't find anything from the OP's posts that suggests that actually took place.
We're now on page 117. On which one did you post the case law you mention above.please?
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 13:32
Graveworm said:
He doesn't have to say you are under arrest I posted the case law earlier. In your words he said very firmly come with me. Alderson V Booth Spicer V Holt and many many more. In Brosch a restaurant manager saying stay there was enough.
"come with me"Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 12:50
Does not equal a Citizen's arrest!
Graveworm said:
R.V Brosch is a nice one for this case. Restaurant manager saying "Stay there" amounted to an arrest. It was a post PACE case that maintained the status quo and also confirmed that this was in keeping with the Non Police exceptions to S28 requirements.
You have me at a disadvantage. I'm guessing you have a source which is not readily available to most because the only reference I could find re that case: said:
R v Brosch [1988] Crim. L.R 743. Arrest is constituted by the physical touching or seizure of the suspect’s body with a view to his detention. Intention to arrest is the essential element to constitute an arrest. Knowledge of being arrested also an essential element on part of the suspect. To constitute a lawful arrest, the arrested person must at the time of the arrest or as soon as practicable after the arrest be informed that he is under arrest and the ground of his arrest and his rights as an arrested person. [Inwoods and Brosch]
It makes the same point about being told why the arrest is being made. AFAICS the OP has never confirmed that the SG made any such statement.Red Devil said:
It makes the same point about being told why the arrest is being made. AFAICS the OP has never confirmed that the SG made any such statement.
Hardly anyone making a citizens arrest includes that. They don't have to if it's obvious. I guess every case on it's merits, the OP said the officer interviewing thought that it was. It's the basis of every citizens arrest I have ever dealt with. A security guard stopping you as you try to leave a shop with goods, having asked if you had a receipt might lend itself to being obvious. I am pretty sure the subsequent you're not going anywhere would have dealt with any ongoing ambiguity.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 15:23
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.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.
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.
hutchst said:
Milkround wasn't arrested.
I get that but, if when he told Milkround to come with him, Milkround did, that would have constituted an arrest. That is the only reason the SG would have to lawfully use force and it would also have to be lawful. Without it we would have 117 pages from a security guard asking what to do about an assault case. milkround said:
In the statement, the guy doens't (Sic) say he was arresting me. The officer says he doesn't need to as it's implied.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 17:36
milkround said:
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.
I don't doubt it I was just dealing with the "For them to provide evidence, they would need to provide the CCTV tapes." Evidence could come from many things. 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.
I can get the "All police stick together thing" but, siding with security guards, is not a theme I am familiar with. When the security guard called the Police, he would be very familiar with the store CCTV and what it would or would not show, he may even have viewed it; but he still called them. That would be an odd thing to do if he was as out there as it appears.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 18:17
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff