Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[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.

[t.boydy]

Where did my post go???

[bighop]

t.boydy said:

Where did my post go???

Back to the main sorting office. There wasn't anyone around to sign for it.

[EazyDuz]

Daily request for CCTV.
OP will surely deliver.

[Dibble]

milkround said:

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.

The latter - police officer.

An earlier poster questioned the “restorative justice” thing being a thing. It is and it’s generally used for lower level offences. It gives the victim a chance to tell the offender how the offence made them feel, which in some instances, the offender may never have even considered. It can be a bit of a “light bulb” moment for the offender and can potentially change/modify/improve future behaviours. It can also be useful for the victim to hear from the offender why they did what they did.

As and when you are interviewed, OP, my advice would be to pretty much ignore everything you’ve heard on here and get legal representation, either the duty solicitor or your own. If you’re a member of a union, you may qualify for legal help via the union. You may have “legal cover” on your home insurance, but that generally doesn’t cover interviews under caution, but I guess it’s always worth checking. I know as well as my Police Federation legal cover I’ve also got various legal advice routes (albeit usually by phone) from a couple of job related “insurance policies”.

If what you’ve said about the officer dealing with you is correct, I’d be a bit underwhelmed too. While your partner may not be a truly independent witness, if I was dealing with the job, I’d get a statement from her (and I can pretty much guarantee if I didn’t, when the time came to get CPS charge advice, they’d not look at the job without the statement so I’d just get an action plan from them to do that and resubmit it),

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.

I do agree with vonhosen to a certain extent. There are ways of dealing with muppets and escalation just generally makes a situation worse, usually for everyone. Much easier to try and resolve stuff by speaking to people (where possible) rather than rolling around the car park and/or Dukes of Hazzard car park driving.

[Centurion07]

Dibble said:

Centurion07 said:

Dibble said:

That “SCONE” thing is guidance, not law. You commit theft at the time you dishonestly take the item with the intention of depriving the other of it. So if you’re shoplifting, the moment you slide the packet of bacon into your jacket at the the chiller, knowing that you’re going to walk out without paying for it, is when the theft actually occurs, not once you’re past the till points or outside in the car park.

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. 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.

It’s similar with burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2), which are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

You don’t have to do any of the things in subsection (2) to commit burglary, it’s enough you’re in there with the intention of doing so.

Proving intent is difficult without an admission, but most courts would convict someone who’d selected the item AND then gone through/past the till points and outside, as it demonstrates more strongly the intent. If someone says “Yes, I took the bacon and wasn’t going to pay for it” and they’re detained at the chiller, they’d in all likelihood be convicted.

Those things are worlds apart though.

Trying to convince a court you were in a business premises at 4 in the morning for perfectly innocent reasons is not the same as putting something in your pocket in a shop.

How many times did you see a shoplifter convicted without having left or even attempted to leave the shop? I would imagine it's very few since trying to prove what someone was thinking without any other evidence of any kind is probably quite difficult.

[Dibble]

Centurion07 said:

Dibble said:

Centurion07 said:

Dibble said:

That “SCONE” thing is guidance, not law. You commit theft at the time you dishonestly take the item with the intention of depriving the other of it. So if you’re shoplifting, the moment you slide the packet of bacon into your jacket at the the chiller, knowing that you’re going to walk out without paying for it, is when the theft actually occurs, not once you’re past the till points or outside in the car park.

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. 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.

It’s similar with burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2), which are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

You don’t have to do any of the things in subsection (2) to commit burglary, it’s enough you’re in there with the intention of doing so.

Proving intent is difficult without an admission, but most courts would convict someone who’d selected the item AND then gone through/past the till points and outside, as it demonstrates more strongly the intent. If someone says “Yes, I took the bacon and wasn’t going to pay for it” and they’re detained at the chiller, they’d in all likelihood be convicted.

Those things are worlds apart though.

Trying to convince a court you were in a business premises at 4 in the morning for perfectly innocent reasons is not the same as putting something in your pocket in a shop.

How many times did you see a shoplifter convicted without having left or even attempted to leave the shop? I would imagine it's very few since trying to prove what someone was thinking without any other evidence of any kind is probably quite difficult.

The burglary bit was just to further illustrate another offence where mens rea is important.

Your question (paraphrased) was “Surely theft as defined in in law only occurs once you’ve left the shop”. It doesn’t. It occurs immediately at the time you select the item without the intention of paying for it. Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

Being on a business premises (or any premises) at 4am in the morning with the intention of committing any of the subsection (2) offences and putting an item in your pocket to steal it are the same, as the intent/mens rea is there.

Practically, it’s “better”/stronger evidence to wait until someone has gone through the till points and/or out of the shop before stopping them. That said, one of the bog standard questions when interviewing for shoplifting is “How much cash did you have on you at the time?” and/or “Did you have any other means of payment?”

[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

[Graveworm]

milkround said:

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.

You haven't been found not guilty.. That's the previous legislation. As I said after the event much harder to show that no theft took place. Plus, as I also said, under the current legislation, 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.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 19th April 00:43

[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

[Graveworm]

[quote=milkround]

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.

Read it again read it numerous times before and was familiar with it. Please read it dispassionately.
1) Your quote only deals with "Where an arrestable offence has been committed (There is no longer any such thing as an arrestable offence). The defendant could, in this case, rely on an acquittal as evidence that such offence had not occurred. Hence my first point.
But the other clause also mentioned in this verdict which did not apply then as the defendant was out of the store and down the road before the initial incident.. viz:
"Anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence" . (Again referring to the previous arrestable offences) This clause differs in that it doesn't stipulate that an offence was being committed.
What it currently says is similar.
"Anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence."
Again no mention that it needs actually to be being committed.
Hence my second point.

[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.

[wjb]

CCTV

[Seight_Returns]

The CCTV is only going to be useful if it shows the whole incident as it developed from inception.

If it only shows what the police appear to have been shown ie the later stages of an already developed scuffle, then the CCTV won’t give the answers you think it will (with obvious caveat that the store may have been selective with what they chose to share with the police).

I’m becoming more sympathetic to the OP - he may have been a silly boy with his actions coloured by a red mist - but his conduct here in the face of a great deal of provocation shows he has more substance than I initially credited him with.

[eskidavies]

I keep opening and scrolling from last visit in the hope of aYT link off the op ,to my dismay nothing yet . Come on op my day needs brightening

[Graveworm]

milkround said:

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.

That constable power is for after the event.
A constable has no additional powers to arrest someone committing an offence than a security guard. It's the same wording just not limited to indictable offences.

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

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 19th April 09:11

[hutchst]

Seight_Returns said:

The CCTV is only going to be useful if it shows the whole incident as it developed from inception.

If it only shows what the police appear to have been shown ie the later stages of an already developed scuffle, then the CCTV won’t give the answers you think it will (with obvious caveat that the store may have been selective with what they chose to share with the police).

I’m becoming more sympathetic to the OP - he may have been a silly boy with his actions coloured by a red mist - but his conduct here in the face of a great deal of provocation shows he has more substance than I initially credited him with.

Is that a thing now? Stores don't bother with cameras to monitor the areas where the crimes are actually committed, because they would rather just watch video footage of us turning up once a week in the car park in our old barges?

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

I nipped into Asda on the way to work this morning. Didn't shoplift anything and didn't get challenged either, but I was ready to give the security guard a bop on the nose if necessary...

[Graveworm]

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

I nipped into Asda on the way to work this morning. Didn't shoplift anything and didn't get challenged either, but I was ready to give the security guard a bop on the nose if necessary...

Similarly the doorman at Fortnum and Mason was a little slow to doff his hat this morning. If he ever recovers enough to return to work, I'll wager it's not something he'll forget again.

[Exige77]

hutchst said:

Seight_Returns said:

The CCTV is only going to be useful if it shows the whole incident as it developed from inception.

If it only shows what the police appear to have been shown ie the later stages of an already developed scuffle, then the CCTV won’t give the answers you think it will (with obvious caveat that the store may have been selective with what they chose to share with the police).

I’m becoming more sympathetic to the OP - he may have been a silly boy with his actions coloured by a red mist - but his conduct here in the face of a great deal of provocation shows he has more substance than I initially credited him with.

Is that a thing now? Stores don't bother with cameras to monitor the areas where the crimes are actually committed, because they would rather just watch video footage of us turning up once a week in the car park in our old barges?

They are probably only concerned about theft and cover appropriate places where theft might occur. Not sure they are that concerned about the route out to the carpark so this may not have been covered it it’s entirety.