Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
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.
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 said:
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).
Seriously?If there's one thing this thread has taught me, it's...
...nothing!
milkround said:
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.
I haven’t posted on this for a while and can’t remember my original opinion, but it does sound that you’ve been utterly let down by the justice system.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.
Whether you should appeal, I’m not sure.
Cat said:
The crime of theft requires there to be dishonesty in the appropriation of the property. As you had no intention of not paying for the items you did not shoplift, inadvertently or otherwise.
Cat
Definitely no shoplifting, as an academic exercise there is a possibility that it is now or may in the future be theft, such is the weird vagueness of appropriation. If you innocently come into possession of property that belongs to another. Once you realise that it is not yours, any subsequent action that assumes the right of an owner can be theft. Cat
My own opinion here, for the little it is worth, is that any assumption that a supermarket security guard has no authority is precisely the reason that milkround got himself into this unholy mess.
It might be more pragmatic to recognise that a store detective or security guard can derive lawful authority under current legislation. PACE 1984 s.24A(1)(b) says so. That's the current version of PACE that has been updated by the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 after R v Self, and bearing in mind that Parliament has quite recently gone out if its way to uphold that authority (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014 s.176(6))
The threshold for reasonable grounds is exceptionally low, to the extent that I can't see how any normal person, at the time of the event, could make an assessment of whether such reasonable grounds existed or not. The law is very clear that a detective/guard can be mistaken without negativing the grounds.
Public interest is NOT going to be served by creating a legal exception allowing a suspected person to have an option of either complying with a request, or whacking the store detective with the nearest frying pan and legging it to the car park (no offence, milkround).
Again without any offence intended to milkround here, there is no evidence that goods were not stolen. The reason there is no evidence is because the suspect clouted the guard and ran away home with all the shopping, and only after safely stashed, called the police. As I see the law, it is intended specifically to remove that temptation (much like the use of PCoJ prosecutions in motoring cases).
It might be more pragmatic to recognise that a store detective or security guard can derive lawful authority under current legislation. PACE 1984 s.24A(1)(b) says so. That's the current version of PACE that has been updated by the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 after R v Self, and bearing in mind that Parliament has quite recently gone out if its way to uphold that authority (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014 s.176(6))
The threshold for reasonable grounds is exceptionally low, to the extent that I can't see how any normal person, at the time of the event, could make an assessment of whether such reasonable grounds existed or not. The law is very clear that a detective/guard can be mistaken without negativing the grounds.
Public interest is NOT going to be served by creating a legal exception allowing a suspected person to have an option of either complying with a request, or whacking the store detective with the nearest frying pan and legging it to the car park (no offence, milkround).
Again without any offence intended to milkround here, there is no evidence that goods were not stolen. The reason there is no evidence is because the suspect clouted the guard and ran away home with all the shopping, and only after safely stashed, called the police. As I see the law, it is intended specifically to remove that temptation (much like the use of PCoJ prosecutions in motoring cases).
Breadvan72 said:
Picking up on a comment from above, everyone should have a serious attitude problem to people in authority. We are citizens, not subjects. A supermarket security guard has no authority. The OP mishandled the situation, but I have some sympathy for his adverse reaction to the original challenge. Being assertive of genuine civil liberties is not the same as being a FOTL t
t.
I think this is possibly one of the most important and saddest posts on this thread. It is sad to say but slowly but surely our civil lobbyist are being eroded. The over use of CCTV, facial recognition, the use of laws in an inappropriate/unintended manner to limit what freedoms and rights we have. In my opinion it is a citizens right and duty to ensure this erosion is resisted as best as possible. t.Oh and I’m no freedom of the land type either.
MB140 said:
I think this is possibly one of the most important and saddest posts on this thread. It is sad to say but slowly but surely our civil lobbyist are being eroded. The over use of CCTV, facial recognition, the use of laws in an inappropriate/unintended manner to limit what freedoms and rights we have. In my opinion it is a citizens right and duty to ensure this erosion is resisted as best as possible.
Oh and I’m no freedom of the land type either.
I’m guessing that the officer who offered the chance for this to go away thought the same as you. Oh and I’m no freedom of the land type either.
vonhosen said:
berlintaxi said:
milkround said:
The solicitor didn't have the receipt
Neither did you, which is where this whole thing started.The Mad Monk said:
vonhosen said:
berlintaxi said:
milkround said:
The solicitor didn't have the receipt
Neither did you, which is where this whole thing started.What could go wrong?
If Milky ever asks one of us to 'Hold his beer' or 'watch this' we need to stop him immediately.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff