Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Milky, you seen this?
https://www.tesco.com/help/privacy-and-cookies/pri...
Article 5 of the GDPR states that data, "shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for" the purposes for which it has been obtained for. Accordingly, Tesco will ensure that recordings/images (including BWC footage) captured by the Surveillance System will be retained by Tesco for a maximum of 31 days from the date of recording unless required for legal process or the investigation of crime or breaches of the Code of Business Conduct. Recordings shall be deleted as soon as the footage is no longer required.
Do you have an email contacting them within the 31 days? If so, that will help you a lot.
https://www.tesco.com/help/privacy-and-cookies/pri...
Article 5 of the GDPR states that data, "shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for" the purposes for which it has been obtained for. Accordingly, Tesco will ensure that recordings/images (including BWC footage) captured by the Surveillance System will be retained by Tesco for a maximum of 31 days from the date of recording unless required for legal process or the investigation of crime or breaches of the Code of Business Conduct. Recordings shall be deleted as soon as the footage is no longer required.
Do you have an email contacting them within the 31 days? If so, that will help you a lot.
Graveworm said:
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.
I too get that. I was commenting on a previous post that paraphrased a lot of irrelevant stuff from R v Brosch.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
carinaman said:
Since when was refusing to show a receipt an arrestable offence?
The Security Guard didn't have reasonable grounds and was on a fishing trip.
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.The Security Guard didn't have reasonable grounds and was on a fishing trip.
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 said:
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.
It does matter but of course it does need to be based on objective grounds. It might matter more, if he were facing a criminal charge for assaulting you. My point is not that his belief makes your actions wrong or his right, just it didn't need to come from animosity; it can arise from a mistake as to circumstances. As I said, the other options are that he does this a lot this or finally that this was a one off which is the least likely. 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.
All of the above alone doesn't overcome that low bar, but it can add to it. I know from your account that what he thought is wrong but that doesn't mean he didn't think it and more importantly, he probably still believes that your account is wrong. He will know what the typical behaviour of innocent people is, in those circumstances; your deviation from that is completely legal and within your rights - but that deviation can add to his suspicion. By now, several people, have examined his account and yours and think there is a realistic prospect of a conviction so they are content that his reasonable grounds meet the required standard.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 23:28
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.
Maybe so. But it is a debatable point AND the security guard should be trained to such a standard as to know he has to make clear that a person is being arrested. "Come with me" does not carry enough weight in my opinion.Edited by Graveworm on Monday 19th August 12:50
" I require you to stay here" " "stop I need to speak to you". But not "come with me" that indicates to me that the speaker the SG believes he has arrested (stopped movement) and is then issuing an instruction AFTER a lawful arrest (which had not taken place).
If someone said to me "come with me" I would think no not untill you arrest me. Then I will.
Your worships.
Graveworm said:
carinaman said:
Since when was refusing to show a receipt an arrestable offence?
The Security Guard didn't have reasonable grounds and was on a fishing trip.
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.The Security Guard didn't have reasonable grounds and was on a fishing trip.
The one in this thread might be an individual who has been inadequately trained or a rogue operative who has slipped through the net. Or not.
Who will be able to tell until the matter goes to trial? If it ever does. It might get binned first.
Hopefully there will be better CCTV footage than the two clips the OP posted ages ago. Wholly inadequate as evidence imo.
All this talk about whether (or not) the security guard was arresting the op is daft.
If he wasn't arresting him then what was he doing ?
Asking the op to dance ? Fancied a bit of wrestling ?
The security guard tried to prevent the op leaving and restricted his movement.
That's an arrest. Simple.
If he wasn't arresting him then what was he doing ?
Asking the op to dance ? Fancied a bit of wrestling ?
The security guard tried to prevent the op leaving and restricted his movement.
That's an arrest. Simple.
OP, you keep mentioning the CCTV that you “know” will show x, y or z. Do you actually know this for a fact, or are you just guessing/speculating? If you know, how do you know?
Most of the larger retail outfits generally have reasonably good CCTV, but it never covers every single inch of the store. Indeed, there are occasions where the places you’d expect to be really well covered, such as the main entrance/exit, aren’t. This is usually down to something as innocuous as a faulty camera or faulty recorder on a particular channel, or maybe a subcontractor has put the camera where there isn’t a great view, or a subcontractor sticks a drainpipe or a banner such that it blocks the view, partially or completely. I’ve personally never heard of such an instance of lack of camera cover being as a result of any sort of conspiracy.
You’ve also mentioned in your more recent posts that the Police haven’t got all the CCTV. Again, do you know this for a fact, or are you just speculating? I’ve tried to explain why practically there may have been delays with disclosure (there shouldn’t be, the rules around CPIA 1996 and disclosure issues don’t have a “it was really busy and we didn’t have time to get round to it, sorry” clause, but that IS the reality), so it is possible the police have recovered the CCTV and it’s just not been disclosed yet. Personally, I try to make sure I always get the CCTV (even when it doesn’t show anything - I’ll explain why in a moment). I’m sure any officer dealing with anything remotely serious or where there was an “awkward” detainee would ensure everything had been done correctly, including getting all statements/CCTV etc.
Why get CCTV if it doesn’t show something? Because if the detainee says on interview that, for example, he was outside The Old Istanbul Kebabbery on the High Street at 2am, when the complainant approached him from behind and assaulted him without warning by whacking him over the back of the head with a 1.5 litre Lambrini bottle (other brands of sparkling Perry are available) but the CCTV in fact shows the detainee unmolested, polishing off an extra large elephant leg and chips with chilli sauce, before getting into a taxi and being driven away, it undermines the detainee’s account.
Similarly, if someone gives “No comment” replies in interview, but we know where he’s been, I’d get the CCTV in any case, so it could be reviewed if necessary further down the line, perhaps when a defence statement is made. I just try to get it all, but it’s not always possible to review it pre interview. If it is reviewed and undermines the prosecution case/supports the defence case, the last thing I’d be doing is hiding it. I’d be memoing the CPS, quick smart.
Then of course there are the potential issues with downloading recovering/viewing the CCTV. Larger retailers should have a decent quality (definition) system, which the operators can easily download, with the required player if necessary, in a readily viewable format. Smaller retailers often buy cheaper, lower resolution systems, with practically indecipherable instructions (if there even are any paper instructions) and no one about who has a clue how to download it (and invariably, the date and time will be WAY off (which isn’t normally an issue, SOP for recovering CCTV is to compare AND record the speaking clock vs system time)). There won’t be a mouse, or the store won’t have a disc that’s the right format. We’re not allowed to use USB sticks, unless they’ve been encrypted by our HQ ICT team, but they only work with PCs/laptops, where you can type in the password, not an AliExpress, Chinese made, no name CCTV system, with no mouse/keyboard/USB ports, installed by the owner’s mate’s son who’s “doing IT” for GCSE... the encrypted USB sticks are only 4GB as well. No, really.
Plenty of smaller systems have NO markings at all to even start Googling for instructions, so we then either have to seize the whole system/recorder (not great) or submit a request for the digital imaging people at HQ to come and recover the footage. If they can’t manage it in store, they end up seizing the box and trying to download it back at HQ. Even the “gurus” are not always successful, so then it’s trying to film the footage from screen on a Samsung PDA, with the obvious further loss of clarity/definition.
Most of the larger retail outfits generally have reasonably good CCTV, but it never covers every single inch of the store. Indeed, there are occasions where the places you’d expect to be really well covered, such as the main entrance/exit, aren’t. This is usually down to something as innocuous as a faulty camera or faulty recorder on a particular channel, or maybe a subcontractor has put the camera where there isn’t a great view, or a subcontractor sticks a drainpipe or a banner such that it blocks the view, partially or completely. I’ve personally never heard of such an instance of lack of camera cover being as a result of any sort of conspiracy.
You’ve also mentioned in your more recent posts that the Police haven’t got all the CCTV. Again, do you know this for a fact, or are you just speculating? I’ve tried to explain why practically there may have been delays with disclosure (there shouldn’t be, the rules around CPIA 1996 and disclosure issues don’t have a “it was really busy and we didn’t have time to get round to it, sorry” clause, but that IS the reality), so it is possible the police have recovered the CCTV and it’s just not been disclosed yet. Personally, I try to make sure I always get the CCTV (even when it doesn’t show anything - I’ll explain why in a moment). I’m sure any officer dealing with anything remotely serious or where there was an “awkward” detainee would ensure everything had been done correctly, including getting all statements/CCTV etc.
Why get CCTV if it doesn’t show something? Because if the detainee says on interview that, for example, he was outside The Old Istanbul Kebabbery on the High Street at 2am, when the complainant approached him from behind and assaulted him without warning by whacking him over the back of the head with a 1.5 litre Lambrini bottle (other brands of sparkling Perry are available) but the CCTV in fact shows the detainee unmolested, polishing off an extra large elephant leg and chips with chilli sauce, before getting into a taxi and being driven away, it undermines the detainee’s account.
Similarly, if someone gives “No comment” replies in interview, but we know where he’s been, I’d get the CCTV in any case, so it could be reviewed if necessary further down the line, perhaps when a defence statement is made. I just try to get it all, but it’s not always possible to review it pre interview. If it is reviewed and undermines the prosecution case/supports the defence case, the last thing I’d be doing is hiding it. I’d be memoing the CPS, quick smart.
Then of course there are the potential issues with downloading recovering/viewing the CCTV. Larger retailers should have a decent quality (definition) system, which the operators can easily download, with the required player if necessary, in a readily viewable format. Smaller retailers often buy cheaper, lower resolution systems, with practically indecipherable instructions (if there even are any paper instructions) and no one about who has a clue how to download it (and invariably, the date and time will be WAY off (which isn’t normally an issue, SOP for recovering CCTV is to compare AND record the speaking clock vs system time)). There won’t be a mouse, or the store won’t have a disc that’s the right format. We’re not allowed to use USB sticks, unless they’ve been encrypted by our HQ ICT team, but they only work with PCs/laptops, where you can type in the password, not an AliExpress, Chinese made, no name CCTV system, with no mouse/keyboard/USB ports, installed by the owner’s mate’s son who’s “doing IT” for GCSE... the encrypted USB sticks are only 4GB as well. No, really.
Plenty of smaller systems have NO markings at all to even start Googling for instructions, so we then either have to seize the whole system/recorder (not great) or submit a request for the digital imaging people at HQ to come and recover the footage. If they can’t manage it in store, they end up seizing the box and trying to download it back at HQ. Even the “gurus” are not always successful, so then it’s trying to film the footage from screen on a Samsung PDA, with the obvious further loss of clarity/definition.
The OP's job involves delivering to retail sites so he has some understanding of the CCTV used around self service tills and entrances of supermarkets. You'd think the main supermarkets would standardise on certain CCTV systems just as they've standardised on self service tills.
The OP's solicitor is running with Self Defence.
There's no duty to retreat. Not retreating could be an indication of a reluctance to indulge in fisticuffs, but it should be seen in the context of the whole situation.
The whole situation seems the OP paid for the pan, the Security Guard didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect the OP of theft and approaching the OP asking for a receipt looks like a fishing trip.
Having all of the CCTV would show that.
It seems like Collins v Wilcock.
The OP's solicitor is running with Self Defence.
There's no duty to retreat. Not retreating could be an indication of a reluctance to indulge in fisticuffs, but it should be seen in the context of the whole situation.
The whole situation seems the OP paid for the pan, the Security Guard didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect the OP of theft and approaching the OP asking for a receipt looks like a fishing trip.
Having all of the CCTV would show that.
It seems like Collins v Wilcock.
milkround said:
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.
For reasonable suspicion to be valid, he needs to be able to articulate that suspicion, and have it be so essentially a reasonable person, or persons would feel it's valid. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being total and complete knowledge, reasonable suspicion is about a 2-3. While only you and the SG know exactly what has gone on, if he thinks you may have been stealing, and you then refuse to show a receipt, that's going to increase suspicion. If I, as a cop, thought someone had stolen something, and they neither wanted to, or couldn't show me proof of purchase, that's going to increase suspicion in my book. It's certainly in the realms of reasonable suspicion. 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.
In terms of looking a bit dodgy and not obey commands not meeting that low bar, it would depend. If I have suspicion, genuinely held (even if mistaken), that they're involved, and they're trying to leave, they're getting nicked. If I see someone I know is a dodgy person but there's no offences I'm aware of and they decline to come talk to me, then there's little I can do.
(I'm not saying you were wrong in this situation, that's for a court to determine, just explaining the suspicion element. His claim of reasonable suspicion, if the footage shows it your way, may be shown to be plainly false. But obviously nobody else here can really comment)
Vaud said:
Have they? Waitrose has two types of till near us... Sainsbury's, Co-Op and Booths different again...
You could well be right. I was coming at it from a logical, makes sense angle in procurement, bulk discounts ease of use and support-ability to have the same systems rather than first hand experience. I don't do a lot of shopping. 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..... my ignoring him (proveably false).
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.
carinaman said:
You could well be right. I was coming at it from a logical, makes sense angle in procurement, bulk discounts ease of use and support-ability to have the same systems rather than first hand experience. I don't do a lot of shopping.
Actually all supermarkets standardising would create a monopoly for one supplier meaning they could control the price...Standardising on features and requirements for CCTV coverage - a level of quality, light level sensitivity, security, download, able to upload to the cloud, etc would make sense.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff