Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[milkround]

BrabusMog said:

You're full of st. A quick Google search shows that this isn't a police led initiative. What is the point in making up a fantasy thread like this? Congratulations for managing to string it along for as long as you have, though.

Apologies bud I got the name wrong https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q760.htm

Fortunately I'm not an expert in this stuff.

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

Restorative justice ... You would need to admit you were guilty.

Usually involves a meeting between parties ...

Security guard is the victim ... Are you happy with that ?

Alternative would be prosecution IF the evidence warrants it and the CPS believe it is in the public interest and there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

What, exactly, are the police threatening to potentially charge you with ?

There are many forms of assault. Was anybody injured ?

If the video shows what the police lady says it does I'd not only be happy with that but I'd feel like an injustice has happened to the gaurd.

If it shows what I'd remember it would be a great injusmctise and a shameful action on everyone involved with it.

[milkround]

the tribester said:

I was looking forward to the OPs conversation with his brief when (if) he gets a copy of the CCTV, and him telling the brief he's got to upload it onto YouTube because plenty of followers to his blog are waiting to see it. Hah!

Brief!!!

I drive a truck for a supermarket in a self employed capacity! Do you think I can afford a barrister?? They'd charge in an hour more than I earn in a day! I'd need to monetize the video first and hope it goes viral!

I'm waiting on the SAR. And they have made it clear all faces but mine will be pixelled out. I can't see any good reason for not putting the footage up. It's not like this is going to be the trial of the century - if it even gets that far!

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

Do you deliver to the supermarket where the incident happened ?

That would be interesting if they have banned you.

Yep.

I also drive a reefer(fridge). So all my deliveries are priority ones. If they don't get the stock they run out and potentially it all goes in a skip.

I've delivered to that store about 4 times in 6 weeks. So it will happen again. There is no way a manager is going to turn away 10 ton plus of fresh stock. Ever.

Which is the other point - fortunately I'm okay at my job and there are not people lining up to do it. But if I accept that I attacked a security guard then I'd have no choice but to not work there. Which is fine as I don't like it. But I'd rather chose not to (or thet tell me I'm not welcome) than a police officer in effect forcing me out of a job. I know she doesn't mean that- but I can guarantee shed not be accepting guilt in these circumstances and doing herself out of her job. She'd be lawyering up etc which is what she tried to talk me out of. I'm not too impressed with her I can tell you.

[milkround]

Thesprucegoose said:

Yes they are a business if they didn't they would be out of business, its called the free market . Do you believe what you've written because its twaddle, as it sounds more like Communism.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 17th April 21:14

So they have made a commercial decision to do all those things. Yet they expect members of the public to put up with being treated like criminals as a consequence? (Note this is the first time it's ever happened to me).

I have a brand new Honda PCX 125 (one day old). Not an expensive scooter. But one commonly nicked. So I've just put a big chain around it. And an expensive disk lock audible alarm. I've put it in a place where cars/vans cannot access. If I chose to leave it with no security in an open place it wouldn't give me the right to treat everyone as a potential thief because I'd made that decision. All those security steps are an inconvenience to me - but I value my stuff so do them anyway.

Relying on people playing along and being a good sport is all well and good - until they don't want to. Or it all goes wrong. Just google 'accused of shoplifting' like I did at work today. We are not talking junkies here who are wronged. We are talking about respected members of society. And loads of normal working class people like myself. Security should focus on securing things rather than responding to what happens when someone pinches it.

Shoplifting is a problem. And I don't want to pay more for my food. But I've also been the victim of having my Diesel nicked. Not nice either. Especially when it's below freezing and you only realise when you wake up as your night heater isn't working and you are shivering (sleeping in a truck here). I still wouldn't dream of challenging anyone who walked passed my fuel tanks when parked up unless I was sure. Because I'd likely get my head kicked in. And secondly, because I think it's about the most offensive thing you can do - to call someone a tea leaf when they are not.

[milkround]

BertBert said:

It wasn't like that though was it? You missed the bit where the OP departed the scene (exercising his civil liberties), leaving the security guard no choice but to do something. Again not saying the security guard acted well, but the OP gave him no choice but to act.
Bert

How did he have no choice?

He had many choices. As did I. We both are adults and could chose what we did. We both have to reflect on them. And perhaps we could both learn a bit from this. I know I certainly will.

No choice is someone trying to kill you and you not being able to get away. So having to fight to defend yourself. Following someone outside is a choice. Grabbing them is a choice. Me not going with him was a choice. Me not engaging with him was a choice.

What matters now is if the choices we took were lawful or not. I feel very confident that I didn't break any laws. And I also feel confident that the evidence will show this.

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

He has exactly the same rights as a copper to get physical when trying to lawfully arrest someone. The only question is whether he was trying to do that and if it was reasonable. It's entirely possible he was or at least he will be saying he was or him reporting this to the police would be asking for trouble. Since the OP made off before it was resolved there will be less proof that there was no theft, even less that the security guard didn't believe there was.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 18th April 12:31

If only the Police/SIA did training on this and gave guidance... SCONE. The O is important. Observed at all times. My suspicion is that CCTV will show he did not leave the doors. So how he saw me do anything is amazing. If he claims he saw me on CCTV lifting something that will be great for him. But it never happened.

There is a really really good reason the Police have made it clear I'm not being accused of shoplifting. And that's because there is not even reasonable grounds for them to talk to me about this. There is no allegation of shoplifting. I've explicitly asked this.

You are conflating what you think should be the law/rules with what they really are. As things stand the Police are saying that there is CCTV footage which shows me strike him. They originally said it showed him not touching me. Then said it showed him grabbing at items I was carrying. The police lady did say it showed him chase me out of the shop. She said it looked like a natural action after falling over (the strike) rather than something premeditated. I've not seen it so can't comment yet.

The reality is that I never stole anything. There is no evidence that I did. And he also grabbed my partner so he'd have to have grounds that we both stole. But he let her go AFTER seeing the receipt. He needs to explain why he changed his mind. I don't need to prove my innocence.

[milkround]

Centurion07 said:

Since you mention that "SCONE" is only a guide, surely "theft", as defined by the law, only occurs once you leave the shop? Granted normal people put stuff in their basket rather than their jacket so your average shoplifter has already made the decision, but the law can't possibly say 100% that the intent is there, hence the "leaving the premises" part.

Nope. I've been researching this.

`As soon as you pick it up with the intention of taking it without paying you have commited theft. Proving it at that point is more tricky so they wait.

[milkround]

Dibble said:

Nope. As above, as soon as you have the [i]mens rea[/] (guilty mind/intent) and you take the item, that is when the theft occurs. Walking past the till points/having no money or means of payment just strengthens the evidence. The actual theft occurs at the time the item is selected with the intention of not paying for it.

I'm going to assume you are a Criminal Solicitor or a Police Officer. Either way you know your stuff.

But there is a difference in my mind between an offence being committed. And you being able to demonstrate you have reasonable grounds to believe someone has committed an offence. I'm not saying you have to use SCONE. But I'm well interested at hearing in this interview/meeting why he felt the need to lay his hands on me.

Short of saying he saw me put something in my pocket he is left with 'he looked dodgy' which I'm not convinced would cut it. Especially once it's pointed out that he both ignored the guidance but also let us go after he'd seen a receipt. If he saw me conceal something he'd have focussed on that. Not let us go after viewing the receipt.

FYI not only did I pay for my stuff. But I didn't have any bag or baggy clothing. I had been servicing my car so was in some jeans an a fleece top with next to no pockets.

People make mistakes. I get that. People do things in the heat of the moment. But a Police officer should be able to scratch their head and ask if a thief would steal from a shop with cameras and security - or from a truck with no cameras and no security. Not least when the driver of said truck is legally required to stop in random places for 45 mins after so many hours.

What's more they should ask themselves how they'd react if someone grabbed them and strarting trying to twist their arm behind their back etc. I reckon the copper would feel well entitled to get the CS out. Or a few smacks with a truncheon. But the normal member of the public is dragged in for far less.

[milkround]

TonyRPH said:

milkround said:

<snip>

People make mistakes. I get that. People do things in the heat of the moment. But a Police officer should be able to scratch their head and ask if a thief would steal from a shop with cameras and security - or from a truck with no cameras and no security.

Thieves do steal, even when they're aware of CCTV presence etc. I presume some of them think they can conceal items without detection by slight of hand or similar method.

milkround said:

Not least when the driver of said truck is legally required to stop in random places for 45 mins after so many hours.

I suspect that nobody knew what you do for a living, or even the circumstances around this - so the above is largely irrelevant surely?

No mate it's not irrelevant. Because about 2 mins after getting home that night I called the Police on 101 and explained what had gone on. I told em my name my address, my job, my phone number and my email address. Totally normal behaviour for your average shoplifter I am sure.

I even told the female copper on the phone when she called me trying to say I should write a nice litter saying I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to big myself up I just had to explain that I had no problems chatting to her as she'd called me whilst I was sat there with a broken down taillift so I had loads of time to chat.

Thieves may steal. But I'd wager they are far more likely to rob when they are exclusively carrying 20+tonnes of the stuff than when they can fit it in their jeans pocket. About 3 days previously I'd been to that same shop! If I was inclined to steal I'd not be doing it inside the shop that's for sure. People look for the easiest route to getting stuff. For me that would not (and still is not) the shop floor. It's ludicrous.

Edit - if you mean sucurity bloke at the time. I made it clear he was being daft as I drove an artic for the firm.This lead to some back and forth with him saying 'are you f'ing kidding me, you should not mess with me job''. But he knew full well. If he'd calmed down rather than putting his hands on people I could have shown him my site access pass in my wallet. Or my colleague canteen card to get free coffee.

Edited by milkround on Thursday 18th April 19:15

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

I asked this many pages ago;

What, exactly, are the police threatening to charge you with, op ?

Section 39 Assault ? Section 47 Assault ? Public order offence ?

She just said assault on the phone.

Here is where I get in trouble from those saying I'm making it up. But she's not been too specific in the details . Even in the email it doesn't say.

So I reckon I'll have to find out when I rock up.

[milkround]

Dibble said:

There’s a big difference in my mind between “restorative justice” and “straight to court”. There are a few other potential disposal routes, such as simple caution, a conditional caution, a PND (penalty notice for disorder - effectively a fixed penalty notice for non motoring stuff).

I’m not going to get into the rights and wrongs of who did/said what and if I’m honest, I’m a bit rusty (without looking it up) on “any person” powers of arrest. I’m ok with my powers of arrest, because I use them regularly. If I was dealing with your job, I’d be refreshing my memory first about “any person” powers before I interviewed you.

Cheers - I don't think I'd have any reason to complain if I were dealing with you. As you seem to both know your stuff and also seem like a fair type. I'll hold off anymore judgement about the PC in question until I've met her.

If you are interested (and your probably not) I've been doing a fair bit of research: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1992/2.ht...

Basically, it's just a bit of case law that states emphatically that if you are even found not guilty of the offence the any person arrest is unlawful. The offence has to have been committed. I wish more police were aware of this - then they could educate store staff rather than side with them in cases like this.

As I am not 100% sure that the PC will have done my level of research I'll take a copy to show to her.

P.S - those who are blasting my actions should also have a read. And see how a Detective Constable does assaulting security whilst being accused of theft. When he actually had stuff in his pockets!!! I feel like a bit of a saint in comparison to this lad. And he was cleared in the court of appeal!

Edited by milkround on Friday 19th April 00:27

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

You haven't been found not guilty.. As I said after the event much harder to show that no theft took place. Plus, as I also said, if the incident started when the security guard suspected that the theft was still being committed then there is no requirement that a theft actually took place, just reasonable suspicion that one was taking place.

Have you read the document in the link?

For an any person arrest to be lawful there really really is a need for an offence to have been committed.

Don't believe me though mate - the Court of Appeal wrote a judgement explicitly stating this. The one I linked.

As I'm not sure if you are trolling me or not here is a quote from them:

However, in the judgment of this court, the words of section 24 do not admit of argument. Subsection (5) makes it abundantly clear that the powers of arrest without a warrant where an arrestable offence has been committed require as a condition precedent an offence committed.

Edited by milkround on Friday 19th April 00:49

Edited by milkround on Friday 19th April 00:51

[milkround]

Graveworm we are going to have to agree to differ in opinions on this one.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/secti...

Anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

Does not mean you reasonable think an offence has happened. It means the offence has happened and you are reasonably sure that person is the one who done it.

Which is why the bits relating to what a constable can do state:

If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

Notice they have said police officers can nab you even if they are not 100% sure an offence has even happened. As long as they are reasonably sure. But they left that out for the other people like me and you.

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

I do but the police have no extra powers to arrest someone committing it's either any person can or no one can. At the time of Self there was no separate constable power for committing. The scenario we sought advice for and what they ended up doing several times was arresting people for drugs or occasionally firearms where later it transpired there were no guns or drugs and the people were released without charge. Just as the police do.

Here is what Self said:
"Any person may arrest without a warrant" - and of course "any person" means both a citizen and a constable
"(a) anyone who was in the act of committing an arrestable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence."
It is immediately apparent that that subsection is dealing with the present continuous, that is somebody in the act of committing the offence or someone that the arrester has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence.

Dealing with the specifics of Self was all about as the court called it Subsection (5) moves on to the past, indeed the perfect tense:
Which is where the constable and any person powers are different.

So for the present continuous either both a constable and any person can arrest or nether a constable or any person can and luckily for everyone it's both.

You are totally wrong. And whoever has told you this should be challenged.


[i]Then by contrast subsection (6) deals with a constable's powers of arrest which are very much wider than those of the citizen. It states:

"Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of the offence."
Thus there are double reasonable grounds for suspecting, both as to the commission of the offence and the person who has committed it.[/i]

The only wording that had changed between then and now in the legislation is that they have changed arrestable to indictable. The court of appeal made it clear then. And the judgment still holds.

Remember those are not my words. You are trying to interpret the statute. But for your opinion to hold any weight you'd have to get the court of appeal (or a higher court) to change their minds. Or you'd have to get Parliament to pass new legislation.

If you doubt what I've said why not shoot an email to the CPS and ask them. Explain you work in security and want to know if you are lawfully entitled to make an arrest when you suspect an offence has been committed. You won't like the answer but it might save you some trouble at work sometime.

[milkround]

Graveworm said:

That section follows what I said in the judgement it does not refer to committing powers of arrest. In Self the arrested person was down the street with the choccy bar in his pocket so that was all about where an offence has been committed. You are ignoring the distinction between having committed and committing powers of arrest and just looking at committed where all along I have said as you are saying. If it's a choice between your interpretation and treasury counsel I wouldn't bet on you getting it right. In Self they seemed pretty clear what they were referring to
Subsection (5) NOTE NOT SUBSECTION (4) makes it abundantly clear that the powers of arrest without a warrant where an arrestable offence has been committed require as a condition precedent an offence committed.

I would be happy to email the CPS but they were part of the initial advice and signed off on it.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 19th April 16:14

I am highly suspicious of this. For a number of reasons. But have sent an enquiry to the CPS myself. I shall post their response on here (the only thing I'll redact is my name and email address). If I'm wrong I will of course apologise. Either way, this is an interesting topic and it's been a while since I've had to think as much.

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

Behave.

We're way beyond that now.

Finer points of law and first world questions need to be resolved.

The next question is - Can you cheat a machine ? ( A self service checkout ).

Please quote all relevant Acts and case law.

Answers on a very large postcard please ...

To add even more comedy effect. Can you imagine this coppers face when she thinks she is dealing with a minor assault and I rock up with my folders full of case law, cps guidance, print outs of emails with the cps and other such over the top ness. I'll make sure to give it to the solicitor before I go in so they can't take it off me.

That all being said. It is my life we are talking about here... Whilst it's not the crime of the century I do reckon if she is going to be bold enough to say I'll be going to court she should know the topic inside out and have investigated it properly.

I've seen 24 hours in police custody. I've yet to see someone cite the court of appeal or cps when answering questions. It will wind her up no doubt (just from speaking to her on the phone - she got lairy when I said I'd get my own copy of the cctv saying she knew how to do her job). But as I've said before if it were her accused of a crime she wouldn't be passively accepting it I'm sure.

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

OP - just be aware that you are facing a potential assault charge.

The rights and wrongs of the security guard's actions obviously play a part in the incident but you may wish to read up on reasonable force and defences to an assault charge.

I'd also echo what Dibble said earlier - get proper advice/ representation if the need arises.

Well aware mate.

Got solicitor covered. If it gets more serious will throw some money at a decent one. Partner is the higher earner out of the two of us and says she will open up her bank account as she knows that I didn't either steal anything or set out to attack anyone.

Time will tell. Up until something happens there is no point in me worrying about it.

[milkround]

bad company said:

That’s pretty much my understanding of powers of arrest.

Excuse me if I missed something along the way but have we established if the security officer actually arrested or tried to arrest you?

No.

But without him claiming that he's acting totally unlawfully. And no one would be stupid enough to say that

[milkround]

Red 4 said:

Based on what the OP has said so far I'd be surprised if his solicitor advised him to go "No comment".

Whilst the police and the OP's legal representative are unlikely to be impressed by barrack room lawyers I'd say the OP is right to do his research provided he gets the case law right.

Solicitors don't know everything.

I've met many good ones but I've also met my fair share of really, really bad ones.

Cheers mate.

Sounds a bit daft to hear I'm not totally mental from someone who actually has done that job and knows a bit about it.

I'll have to see what happens. Life is too short to let it get you down.