Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[milkround]

Yep.

Had trial today. Lost. £620 costs. £20 victim surcharge. £100 compensation. 12 months conditional discharge.

Many aspects of it I was unhappy with. The solicitor who turned up had only been given the case the night before. She got stuck in traffic so was 2 and a half hours late. She hadn't been given a copy of my partners statement. She didn't have the CCTV so I needed to show it on my laptop. In the end she had to ask the CPS to use their CCTV throughout. Even ended up asking me if there was anything that had been missed when she was cross examining the guy who I'm now guilty of attacking. Felt like she did her best - but it all just went to rubbish. The mags got annoyed at the lateness, especially when she asked for an early lunch so she could go over the stuff.

So... I have to think about where I go from here. I lost and I have to accept that. Tbh after today I'm inclined to just pay the money and move on. It wasn't exactly a nice experience. All the CCTV which I had enhanced had not been served on the CPS so couldn't be used. Ultimately I lost and no one else.

Sorry to those who did believe in me a bit. I was gung ho about appealing a loss but really need to think about this.

[milkround]

The Mad Monk said:

Sorry to hear you lost, milkround.

Expensive business.

No fine as such?

No I've listed it all. No fine.

After this fiasco my xmas is now looking very scrooge like. But that was my choice and I put myself in this position.

I'm a little upset. But need to take it like a man.

I don't think the system is fair. But then it's the best system we have. In the end the mags said they didn't find me and my partner convincing because we would be able to discuss it. They also said I had failed to prove I needed to use self defence - this was a bit daft as it's for the crown to disprove it to the criminal standard. Ultimately none of that matters as I lost.

I've said that I'd update this. And I really will. But for now I want to go for a run and try and get this out of my head. At the moment I don't think I've even processed it all properly.

[milkround]

kestral said:

Did your solicitor cross examine the SG properly?
Did your solicitor say in any shape or form that you were being attacked and recite the law
regarding arrest under PACE sec 24b?

Can you give more detail as to where you think it went wrong and what the magistrates said at the end of the case.

Are you going to appeal?

I don't know enough to know if the cross examination was done properly. But the magistrates legal advisor did end up saying 'whats the relevance of this?'. And I personally feel many things were missed. That being said who am I to say what should have been included? I felt that the solicitor wasn't prepared. But that wasn't her fault. She only got the papers the night before. The legal advisor kept snapping at my solicitor over lots of things.

She did say I was being pushed. The problem was the close up footage I'd provided wasn't served on the CPS. She never saw it before I showed it to her. She didn't have any CCTV and had to ask the CPS lady to play her copy over and over. She didn't even have my partners statement.

Didn't recite the law. Just said he was acting unlawfully etc. She didn't really go into PACE etc. I think her and the prosecutor discussed it before.

Mags said that they found the guard and witness more convincing. And didn't believe me and my partner as much as we would have been able to talk about it together. Said I had not proven that self defence was applicable and therefore did not think self defence was valid here. Also said that they felt the gaurd had probably not pushed me.

IF all the evidence had been put to the court. And the witnesses had really been challenged I'd be okay with losing a lot more. The witness claimed I never fell over. And said he saw me punching the gaurd when I was standing shoulder to shoulder with my partner. The problem was the SG said I punched him when my partner was a good 30ft away. The solicitor didn't pick up on this.

The guard said he never kicked me. This was clear on the CCTV. She didn't push that. Then the witness said he did kick me! But this wasn't mentioned in the closing speech.

I'm going to have to think about an appeal. I'd only countenance it if I felt I could afford a direct access barrister who I was confident in. I have little faith in solicitors atm. Sounds arrogant but I genuinely felt I could have done a better job of representing myself.

[milkround]

Terzo123 said:

Credit to you Milkround for updating this thread, considering the negative result.

In hindsight, given what's happened, do you think you would have been better to go down the restorative justice route offered at the start by the female PC?

20/20 hindsight yes. For sure.

But if I'd won yesterday I'd have felt absolutely the opposite. So it all depends.

I still know for sure I never punched the bloke. I am absolutely certain of that. I also know he pushed me repeatedly and did kick me. That is clear on the CCTV. The mags disagreed and that was all that mattered yesterday.

I didn't realise how the system worked until yesterday. The CPS prosecutor said repeatedly in her closing speech 'the Police decided to charge Mr Milkround after looking into this'. Surely it doesn't matter what the Police decided and it's the courts job to decide guilt. I never thought the solicitor who turned up wouldn't know about the case or have the evidence. We didn't even have the receipt as I'd stupidly let the other solicitor keep it who couldn't turn up. I explained to the prosecutor under cross examination you could see the time on the receipt and the time I left the store... She said she'd never seen the receipt and my solicitor couldn't even offer it as evidence.

I made my choices and will live with them. People will wake up to hear their loved ones are dead etc. I just lost a case after chosing to fight something because I didn't want to say I did something I didn't do.

[milkround]

hutchst said:

Commiserations Milkround, but I'm sure deep down you know, from reading opinions here from people that actually know about the law, that this result was more than likely. Even your own brief told you it was 50/50.

You have never denied assaulting the guard, but have tried, egged on by others on here living out their fantasies at your expense, to fabricate some kind of justification and then bend that to fit some outdated legal principles. You've been distracted by all sorts of rubbish about pace and scones and licences for bouncers. None of which was relevant.

Talking of that, I see that constable Savage is back, hidiing behind his internet disguise Red 4. I hope that this time you will have the good sense to ignore his drivel.

Thanks huchst . Any blame lies with me and no one else on this website. I made my own decisions as a grown man.

You win some and you lose some. I made my own decisions and can live with them.

[milkround]

Breadvan72 said:

That is not the golden rule of cross-examination.

It matters not whether an advocate is a solicitor or a barrister, so long as the advocate has advocacy skills.

I respect your opinion a lot.

Could you recommend a decent barrister to review the files and see what they think?

Cheers

[milkround]

Thesprucegoose said:

yes, but where in this in the thread, you know the context that is relevant.

I could understand if the OP was a witness against the SG. But from what i've seen, the SG wasn't sacked, wasn't prosecuted for false imprisonment, using excessive force etc.

So in the context, the SG was an authoritarian because he asked the OP for a receipt, and that is a ridicoulous statement.

The SG admitted under oath he never called the Police. He was not going to call the Police. They only found out because some officers came in to buy some food and were told about it from another member of staff. I'd imagine if he genuinely thought he'd done nothing wrong and was punched whilst trying to stop a shoplifter who then got away he might have called the Police... He said in his statement he never saw a receipt. Under oath he accepted he did see one but wasn't able to check what it said. So presumably he would think that I was not only a thug who attacked him but someone who got away.

Or... he realised he made a mistake. And did what he could to minimise that. He said under oath he never touched me. He then said he was trying to snatch things from my hands. Then said it might look like he pushed me as I walked into his hands (I'm not making this up). He also said he never kicked me. His own witness said he 'raised his leg towards me' and the CCTV shows him clearly kicking me.

My opinion after listening to the guy... Was that he isn't a bad person. I think he has made a mistake and was worried about losing his job. I think he knows he was wrong. I think he wasn't going to call the Police as he didn't want to draw attention to it. And I think he knows he would lose his job if he accepted what really happened. But that's just my opinion.

[milkround]

Breadvan72 said:

As for counsel, my friend Gurprit has now given up crime and is too expensive for the case anyway. I will ask a criminal silk whom I know to recommend a sprog from her Chambers. Jacob Gifford Head remains a good choice and is not too expensive.

Thanks BV.

I have tried emailing you but you don't accept messages. If your silk mate does have any names please do contact me and let me know. I'm not sure if I'll need a solicitor to go through these people - ideally I'd prefer to instruct directly as I was not so impressed with the representation I got. But that is a different story. Cheers for taking the time to try and help.

[milkround]

Breadvan72 said:

OP, I do accept messages. I get them all the time. Not infrequently from people who post loudly on PH that all lawyers are scum, but then get into a bit of bother about something and want a freebie. I reply to most messages, but not all.

Cheers. I think I must be doing something wrong as when I try and click the email button I get red writing saying "Ooops that member doesn't accept messages". Or something similar.

[milkround]

Okay - so this is written as a bit of a diary and also as a warning to anyone who ever finds themselves in a position of facing a criminal trial. It's my memory of the day of the trial. All of it is biased based on how I perceived things. I have no legal knowledge or training so if I come across as naive it's because I am.

After my last trial I was told to be at court at 9.30am. The trial was not meant to kick off until 10am (the mags don't even start until then). But the solicitor would have a chance to catch up with me. Before I'd even got to court I had a set back. I had been away all week and had a letter from the solicitors. It explained the original solicitor could not attend so a junior barrister had been instructed. The barrister would have had a week to get to know the case. I didn't get back to England until Sunday and the trial was on Monday - so it was a bit of a shock. I was comforted that the letter said all the CCTV and other evidence has been passed to the baby barrister.

I actually arrived at just after 9. I had been warned if I didn't turn up on time I could have an arrest warrant issued, and the trial would start anyway. 9.30 came and I waited. 10am came and I waited. I was starting to panic a bit. I tried calling the solicitors but there was no answer. At 10.30 the usher (someone dressed like Harry Potter) said a solicitor had called and said they were running late. I asked if I could get a coffee and was told that was fine. So I went and got a coffee. It was the closest thing I had to a breakfast as I had no appetite.

At 11.30 a solicitor did rock up. But it wasn't the very junior barrister I was expecting (yeah I'd googled the name on the letter so was expecting a young ginger lady, not a middle aged women). At this point I was just glad someone was there. But at this point I started to worry. I shook hands and introduced myself and my partner. And the solicitor asked 'Is she expecting to give evidence as well?" It then dawned on me... The solicitor standing in front of me didn't know who my witnesses were meant to be, and my trial was meant to have already started.

In the court there are little rooms you go in and talk with solicitors. I saw solicitors frantically trying to find a free room, and then having to resort to having their meeting on the metal benches in public. So I went in with my solicitor to one of the little rooms. She explained she had only been given the case the night before. And that she wanted to go through my statement so she would know what I was going to say. I asked her about CCTV. She said she thought she might have seen some but she didn't have any. I went and got my bag and showed it to her on my macbook. She explained to me that she needed to check if any of it had been served on the CPS. As it turned out it hadn't.

After this she went into the court and had a chat with the prosecutor and magistrates about something. I don't know what. What I do know is the next thing that happened was the usher came out and asked for me to come in. I went into the dock. I confirmed my name, DOB etc. My solicitor then said she'd like an early lunch (it was 12.25) so she could get her head around the case. The magistrates got pretty annoyed at this and agreed to it on the proviso that 'we must be able to proceed at 13.30'. After that I left the dock and went outside. I had another chat with the solicitor and then left to get lunch for me and my partner, my partner talked to the solicitor whilst I popped and brought a meal deal (I tempted fate and said I didn't need a receipt). We didn't have time to eat together, I munched mine down in double time and Beth ate hers whilst the first witness was giving evidence. At the shops for the first time in a long time I brought a packet of cigarettes. I felt I was going to need them.

I'll post about the trial next. That was the before bit. Well done if you have managed to read my ramblings.

[milkround]

The first thing that happens is the CPS prosecutor gets to make an opening statement. This was short(ish) and was what I'd expect. It explained the states opinion.

After this the first witness is called. In my case that was the security gaurd. The CPS prosecutor went over his version of events asking him questions. I was surprised to find that he never actually called the Police. Officers had been buying some food and another member of staff had spoken to them. To me this should have been something raised at cross examination, but that wasn't to be. The security gaurd claimed he never touched me at all. Then it was my solicitors turn to cross examine.

The issue here was that the bloke did not speak very good English. He did not fully understand some of the questions asked by either the CPS lawyer or mine. But he did finally concede contact had been made. But said it was me walking into his hands and not him pushing me. He said he stopped me as when he was looking up he saw me coming from the wrong way. The CCTV showed that was not the case. But my solicitor didn't have that CCTV. In fact she had none. She had to keep asking the prosecutor to play their CCTV for her. The prosecutor did so - whilst making it clear she was not happy. The legal advocate for the magistrates kept snapping at my solicitor 'how is this relevant' when she tried asking hypothetical questions to the security gaurd. And then snapped 'are you going to let him finish' when my solicitor tried to speak over him. It was clear I wasn't doing well. The gaurd did concede he had tried to snatch things from my hands. But said he was doing that as I'd not proven to him I paid for them.

At the end of her cross examination, I sat there feeling like I was in some sort of dream and would soon wake up. The solicitor has asked if he kicked me. But when he said no, never asked for him to explain the clear kick on the CCTV. And as the CCTV had not been served we couldn't use the slowed down footage showing him pushing me. The solicitor then came over to me and asked 'is there anything I've missed?'. When I tried to explain there was she told me to say it more quietly and then said no more questions.

The next witness was someone who worked in the store. He turned up in his favourite hoody and told us all how he worked in 'fruit and veg'. He then proceeded to explain he heard the sound of a punch, he was standing 'over 50m away and it was pitch black'. But he managed to clearly see I'd thrown a punch rather than pushed the SG. The issue here was... he claimed it happened in totally the wrong place. And that I was standing right next to my partner. Which is totally different to what the security gaurd had just said. But the solicitor did not really go into that or seem to notice it. He was asked if he saw me fall over and replied 'he never fell over'. The solicitor then did ask him to watch the CCTV and point out where I punched the chap and he said he couldn't see it. He then proceeded to say he saw the security gaurd kick me, but this was after I'd tried to hit him over the head with a metal pan! Again the solicitor didn't go into this point. He claimed it was a multipack of pans (which I didn't have and had not brought) so it was totally impossible. The solicitor didn't have the receipt and didn't know this so never challenged it.

After this the crown closed it's case. I genuinely prayed that this was a clever stunt by the solicitor who was not going to point out the glaring inconsistencies and ask for the case to be thrown out. But that never happened. And I was going to be the next witness. I'll write about that next.

[milkround]

ging84 said:

Where did the bit about hitting with the frying pan come from? Was it something that came up at trial? Or was it discussed before?

It was something that was said in a statement which the Police accepted even at interview was not correct.

A witness said the SG kicked me because I went towards him with a pan. But at the time of him kicking me I wasn't holding any form of pan (or anything else for that matter). As a witness the same chap said the same thing - but this time said it was a 6 pack of pans (no idea where that came from). He also said the security gaurd managed to kick them from my hands.

It's all clearly nonsense. Anyone who has reviewed the CCTV can see that. Even the Police accepted that and said "anyone can make a mistake". Unfortunately the solicitor who turned up didn't have the CCTV so didn't question this.

For what it's worth I don't think the bloke was intentionally lying. I think in his his head he has put 2 and 2 together an came up with an odd number. Similarly he said other things which were impossible. Like I hit the bloke when my partner was right next to me (she was a good 25ft away when I shoved him). I think you see something and your mind fills in the blanks.

If anyone is really that bothered I can post that part of the CCTV and you can make your own mind up. I'm currently trying to find a brief to go over it all and see if they think it's worth appealing. I'll make my choice after taking legal advice.

[milkround]

kestral said:

You only have 21 days to appeal. If you put the appeal in you can withdraw it if you need to.

With cost implications I believe?

I am googling and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[milkround]

Flumpo said:

carinaman said:

milkround, your case is just another one where evidence has not been disclosed. On those grounds perhaps those urging you to drop it may have a point.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/15/cps-an...

I couldn’t be bothered reading the link, as it’s probably full of antisemitism.

But this might be the time to cut your losses milky.

You probably have a point. And truth be told I've tried. I actually told my partner I'd let it go and we could move on with our lives. She wants me to do that. But each night when I've tried going to sleep I've been replaying parts of the trial and wondering why the hell I didn't just represent myself. If I'd have lost then at least I'd have put up some resistance. I had a solicitor who didn't even know who was giving evidence for me, and who turned up without any of the cctv several hours late. I had a prosecutor who said I wasn't pushed I walked into the chap (when I was moving away from him). I had CCTV which showed certain things which were said couldn't be true (which was not served). And I had to sit through it all silently, whilst screaming inside for someone to point out the obvious.

Now I'm not saying I'm going to appeal. I'd just like to get advice from someone who I consider respectable to look over it and tell me if in their professional opinion it's worthwhile. If I had a medical problem I'd speak to a doctor. If I had a problem with my tax I'd speak to an accountant. And here I am with a legal issue and I want to run it past a decent lawyer.

[milkround]

Well I have made my mind up. And this will be my last post on this thread. I hope to contribute to the website in different ways going forward, I joined because Iike cars and mechanic things so will focus on that.

I'm not going to appeal. And I'm not going to let this eat me up.

I know what I did and didn't do. I never punched anyone - and I never intentionally set out to cause problems. That's all that really matters. Sod the police, sod the security guard and sod the system which operates like this.

I had a choice - I either prolong this for 6+ more months, thinking about it all the time. Or I focus on positive things and move on with my life in a direction which I am in control of. There are so many things I want to do - and I need to put my focus on those things.

At the end of the day - I took the decision to say no to apologising for something I didn't do. I rolled the dice and lost. In the grand scheme of things big deal. My grandfather had a conviction for theft - his crime was during the miners strikes (living in South Yorkshire) he went to a slag heap and picked up discarded coal to keep his family warm. The injustice to him was far greater than any done to me.

Massive thanks to everyone who has been supportive. In the end I have learned a lot from all this - and I now know some golden rules. Don't trust the Police. If someone is being arsey record it straight away. And most of all stop worrying about stuff which in reality is not that important.

[milkround]

sutoka said:

My local Tesco has over the last few months ditched their mature security guards.You know , white shirt, pot belly, SIA licence on a lanyard types. They seem to have replaced them with some Middle Eastern folk who look togged out for the frontline, Boots, combats, stab-roof vest etc.

This seemed to coincide with them putting in this new security measure of stopping trolleys of random customers who had clearly paid and had receipt in hand. The trolley held it on the metal plate and security bounce over like on an obstacle course, demanding the receipt and poking through the bagged items of customer who had already paid , ie- it was their own property. The best way to deal was a bloke who said 'fk off' picked up his bag and left the trolley sitting there.

Now when it happened to my elderly mother who hasn't stolen. a single item I was furious, it seems the security though it was fine to randomly accuse and search the bag of any customer they saw fit. Only my elderly mother is more than capable and not only confronted the newly appointed migrant on security but waited for the store manager to arrive and gave him a piece of her mind.

He got an apology and a voucher for her trouble but this whole receipt scanning nonsense just shows how inept modern security guards are at noticing patterns and analysing live CCTV, it seems as soon as you get off a boat you are given an SIA badge whether you are competent or have a single ounce of common sense.

What a disgusting thing to say. Where someone comes from has nothing to do with how they act. It's the 21st century. I'm a bit shocked that this website let's a blatantly racist post to remain.

I can't believe this thread is still going. It feels like a lifetime ago. Since all this we have had covid. I have a kid now. I got married. I literally feel like a different person now to then.

Looking back I probably would act differently - I'm older now. But I can still be difficult and a pain when I want to be (just ask my wife or my direct manager at work). Each of us has to do our own thing I suppose. I can't say I particularly regret anything with hindsight. I hope the security guard in question is living his best life. I hope the police and the magistrates etc are happy and have found a way of doing their jobs competently which doesn't lead to terrible miscarriages of justice like in my case.

Now I've sufficiently stirred the pot I'll bow out of this thread forever.