Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!

[4rephill]

Exige77 said:

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.

Whoosh parrot anyone?

[Countdown]

eskidavies said:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njciBuG9_Kk

There you go. I have to admit the OP's not how I pictured him to be......

[Red 4]

Graveworm - sorry mate, you're wrong about the citizen's power of arrest stuff # unless R v Self has been superceded.

R v Self is clear that an arrestable offence must have been committed in order for a citizen to make an arrest.
Suspicion that an offence has been committed is not enough.
If a court finds a defendant not guilty no offence has been committed.
This leaves citizens on very shakey ground.

Police powers allow for suspicion that an offence has been committed.
Big difference.

I must admit that I am surprised by the judgement but it is what it is.

[Bigends]

Red 4 said:

Graveworm - sorry mate, you're wrong about the citizen's power of arrest stuff # unless R v Self has been superceded.

R v Self is clear that an arrestable offence must have been committed in order for a citizen to make an arrest.
Suspicion that an offence has been committed is not enough.
If a court finds a defendant not guilty no offence has been committed.
This leaves citizens on very shakey ground.

Police powers allow for suspicion that an offence has been committed.
Big difference.

I must admit that I am surprised by the judgement but it is what it is.

I understood that was always the case from my training school days.. Members of the public must know that an offence has occured before arrest. Only Police can suspect

[Red 4]

Bigends said:

Red 4 said:

Graveworm - sorry mate, you're wrong about the citizen's power of arrest stuff # unless R v Self has been superceded.

R v Self is clear that an arrestable offence must have been committed in order for a citizen to make an arrest.
Suspicion that an offence has been committed is not enough.
If a court finds a defendant not guilty no offence has been committed.
This leaves citizens on very shakey ground.

Police powers allow for suspicion that an offence has been committed.
Big difference.

I must admit that I am surprised by the judgement but it is what it is.

I understood that was always the case from my training school days.. Members of the public must know that an offence has occured before arrest. Only Police can suspect

It's an odd one isn't it ?

So technically all those shoplifters who are detained by store security but later found not guilty could sue Asda/ Tesco/ Saintsbury's etc for false imprisonment if Self is to be relied on ...

[paintman]

Waiting until they leave the store makes the "I put it in my pocket/shopping bag as a convenient method of carrying it around inside the shop but was going to pay for it before I left." argument rather difficult.

I too was taught that for a store detective/non police officer to detain an arrestable offence must have been committed.

Edited by paintman on Friday 19th April 12:53

[Red 4]

paintman said:

Waiting until they leave the store makes the "I put it in my pocket/shopping bag as a convenient method of carrying it around inside the shop but was going to pay for it before I left." argument rather difficult.

Not necessarily.

In order for the offence to be complete intent ( mens rea ) must be proved.
Theft must include dishonesty.
"Dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive ..."

"I was distracted/ forgot about it/ I'm suffering from stress and my mind was elsewhere/ the kids were misbehaving and my attention was focused on them, etc etc etc.

Self was found not guilty on the basis that he was suffering from stress.

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 19th April 13:01

[Bigends]

paintman said:

Waiting until they leave the store makes the "I put it in my pocket/shopping bag as a convenient method of carrying it around inside the shop but was going to pay for it before I left." argument rather difficult.

I too was taught that for a store detective/non police officer to detain an arrestable offence must have been committed.

Edited by paintman on Friday 19th April 12:53

Customers are under no obligation to use trolleys or baskets whilst in the store - they can carry items how they want - in bags or pockets. Once pay points have been passed and theyre heading for the exit or theyve actually left the store then its game on for arrest, however, often security staff jump the gun and stop the suspect before they make a move to leave. Without an admission that they intended to steal then its difficult to prove intent

Edited by Bigends on Friday 19th April 13:04

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

Graveworm - sorry mate, you're wrong about the citizen's power of arrest stuff # unless R v Self has been superceded.

R v Self is clear that an arrestable offence must have been committed in order for a citizen to make an arrest.
Suspicion that an offence has been committed is not enough.
If a court finds a defendant not guilty no offence has been committed.
This leaves citizens on very shakey ground.

Police powers allow for suspicion that an offence has been committed.
Big difference.

I must admit that I am surprised by the judgement but it is what it is.

When we set up a joint unit with police and immigration officers.. (Immigration officers were likely to be involved in arresting people for offences other than immigration the NCS (as was) obtained treasury counsel advice.
It was clear that if the arrest was for someone [b]
committing [/b] an offence then there was no difference between police and any person powers. Self was central to that.
That's why throughout I have been emphasising when the incident started is important Because of that distinction.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 19th April 13:13

[wjb]

eskidavies said:

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

I've already posted the link.

wjb said:

CCTV

[Exige77]

4rephill said:

Exige77 said:

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.

Whoosh parrot anyone?

Whoosh .............................

[Red 4]

Graveworm said:

When we set up a joint unit with police and immigration officers.. (Immigration officers were likely to be involved in arresting people for offences other than immigration the NCS (as was) obtained treasury counsel advice.
It was clear that if the arrest was for someone [b]
committing [/b] an offence then there was no difference between police and any person powers. Self was central to that.
That's why throughout I have been emphasising when the incident started is important Because of that distinction.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 19th April 13:13

If the person is committing the offence then citizen and police powers are the same (citizen can only arrest for indictable offences though).

The problem arises when no offence has been committed (inc being found not guilty at court).

Ie Citizen must be absolutely certain that an indictable offence is being/ has been committed and then may arrest any person who he has reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of the indictable offence.

Police have the benefit of not having to prove that an offence is being/ has been committed.
Ie Suspicion.

IYSWIM

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

If the person is committing the offence then citizen and police powers are the same (citizen can only arrest for indictable offences though).

The problem arises when no offence has been committed (inc being found not guilty at court).

Ie Citizen must be absolutely certain that an indictable offence is being/ has been committed and then may arrest any person who he has reasonable grounds to suspect to be guilty of the indictable offence.

Police have the benefit of not having to prove that an offence is being/ has been committed.
Ie Suspicion.

IYSWIM

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.

[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.

[Red 4]

Ah, OK.

I see what you are saying ... I think.

If it's during the commission of the offence (present tense) any person may arrestany person - and this includes suspicion that an indictable offence is being committed at the material time ...

If it's after the fact then suspicion that an indictable offence has been committed is not enough ( for Joe Public ).
The offence MUST have been committed.

Is that what you are saying ?

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 19th April 15:55

[Graveworm]

milkround said:

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.

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 (As they explicitly say) 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 16:16

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

Ah, OK.

I see what you are saying ... I think.

If it's during the commission of the offence (present tense) any person may arrestany person - and this includes suspicion that an indictable offence is being committed at the material time ...

If it's after the fact then suspicion that an indictable offence has been committed is not enough ( for Joe Public ).
The offence MUST have been committed.

Is that what you are saying ?

Absolutely.

[Red 4]

Graveworm said:

Red 4 said:

Ah, OK.

I see what you are saying ... I think.

If it's during the commission of the offence (present tense) any person may arrestany person - and this includes suspicion that an indictable offence is being committed at the material time ...

If it's after the fact then suspicion that an indictable offence has been committed is not enough ( for Joe Public ).
The offence MUST have been committed.

Is that what you are saying ?

Absolutely.

.. Which then leads on to; at what point does an offence stop being committed and becomes HAS committed ?

In the case of theft (shop) the offence is technically complete before the offender leaves the store in most cases.

Not much wriggle room for a store detective or security guard who gets it wrong ...

[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.

[bighop]

Can't believe this is still going on. I even accepted my receipt at Asda this morning without realising why. I now remember it was to avoid a roll around in the car park with the fella on the door.