Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
La Liga said:
You'd probably be better to just let it play out rather than going down the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' route.
If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
Aye mate. There is no point in me pointing out that the officer has been doing exactly the opposite of what the pace rules state in plain English. And no point in pointing out that I'd done nothing wrong and that I think the court of appeal had something to say about that. Interestingly it wasn't 'waste of time' when it was a DC who was accused of stealing and assault. The major difference is that he did take something (not unlawfully) and he did kick off when approached (again ruled lawful). If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
If I keep my mouth shut she might forget all about it. And she might not pursue me for crimes that I've not committed. This might just be me. But I'd be mortified if a member of the public told me I'd been doing my job against the rules. For me it might be them pointing out I'd not strapped my load properly. Or that I had forgot to put my number plate on my trailer etc. I'd thank them for letting me know rather than 'not be impressed'.
I suspect you are a Police Officer as well. And you see a trivial (from your perspective) job turning from 5 mins to many hours because someone is going to cause problems. Which is fair enough. But I also suspect if you were accused of assault and/or theft and the police were acting like this you'd not be keeping quiet and playing along. I may be totally wrong about all that though. Either way have a fantastic weekend - if I've annoyed you I apologise. It's not my intention.
There's an old saying that a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
I suggest you go & have a chat with a proper lawyer.
One that specialises in criminal law & knows how to deal with police interviews & - if it comes to it - court appearances if you were charged with anything.
You can quote what you like when interviewed if you decide to DIY but you are likely to find the interview will continue regardless & they won't be drawn into various legal arguments.
Likely the interviewer will have a list of questions so he/she covers all the points about the incident itself - common practice with detectives.
I suggest you go & have a chat with a proper lawyer.
One that specialises in criminal law & knows how to deal with police interviews & - if it comes to it - court appearances if you were charged with anything.
You can quote what you like when interviewed if you decide to DIY but you are likely to find the interview will continue regardless & they won't be drawn into various legal arguments.
Likely the interviewer will have a list of questions so he/she covers all the points about the incident itself - common practice with detectives.
milkround said:
La Liga said:
You'd probably be better to just let it play out rather than going down the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' route.
If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
Aye mate. There is no point in me pointing out that the officer has been doing exactly the opposite of what the pace rules state in plain English. And no point in pointing out that I'd done nothing wrong and that I think the court of appeal had something to say about that. Interestingly it wasn't 'waste of time' when it was a DC who was accused of stealing and assault. The major difference is that he did take something (not unlawfully) and he did kick off when approached (again ruled lawful). If you're interviewed, then do what the solicitor says. No one will be impressed / it'll be of no benefit to you if you start quoting case law / PACE etc. You not recognising that shows why it's risky to pick up patchy bits of knowledge in a subject matter you have no experience / expertise in.
The reality is it's a low-level minor waste of time scuffle between two adults who should know better, and would be of no surprise if it's left on the bottom of the pile of an officer's case load.
If I keep my mouth shut she might forget all about it. And she might not pursue me for crimes that I've not committed. This might just be me. But I'd be mortified if a member of the public told me I'd been doing my job against the rules. For me it might be them pointing out I'd not strapped my load properly. Or that I had forgot to put my number plate on my trailer etc. I'd thank them for letting me know rather than 'not be impressed'.
I suspect you are a Police Officer as well. And you see a trivial (from your perspective) job turning from 5 mins to many hours because someone is going to cause problems. Which is fair enough. But I also suspect if you were accused of assault and/or theft and the police were acting like this you'd not be keeping quiet and playing along. I may be totally wrong about all that though. Either way have a fantastic weekend - if I've annoyed you I apologise. It's not my intention.
You've not annoyed me. My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
Secondly, as I wrote. If you're interviewed, just listen to your solicitor once they've had disclosure. That includes what to say during interview and surrounding legal processes / procedures. You're potentially ending up at a Magistrates court, not one of the Senior Courts where they're going to be pouring over the Codes Of Practice and whether an unrecorded phone call adhered to them or not.
You're a normal member of the public and should use normal language that you'd use to describe things. If you have to raise self-defence, the fundamental part of the law is 'an honestly held belief'.
It comes across as honest if you describe things as, "I hit him back because I was scared he was going to hurt me. He attacked me after I did nothing wrong. I honestly thought he was going to cause me a serious injury."
As opposed to, "Well, as per my pile of notes, in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attached may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense he may do, but only do what is reasonably necessary", which comes across as a post-incident disingenuous Google-fest.
La Liga said:
used to be a police officer and interviewed lots of suspects and was interviewed as a suspect on a number of occasions. Including for assault.
You've not annoyed me. My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
Secondly, as I wrote. If you're interviewed, just listen to your solicitor once they've had disclosure. That includes what to say during interview and surrounding legal processes / procedures. You're potentially ending up at a Magistrates court, not one of the Senior Courts where they're going to be pouring over the Codes Of Practice and whether an unrecorded phone call adhered to them or not.
You're a normal member of the public and should use normal language that you'd use to describe things. If you have to raise self-defence, the fundamental part of the law is 'an honestly held belief'.
It comes across as honest if you describe things as, "I hit him back because I was scared he was going to hurt me. He attacked me after I did nothing wrong. I honestly thought he was going to cause me a serious injury."
As opposed to, "Well, as per my pile of notes, in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attached may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense he may do, but only do what is reasonably necessary", which comes across as a post-incident disingenuous Google-fest.
Cheers. That all makes total sense tbh. And I think the key thing is that it's a big deal to me but not to anyone else. I shall get on with my life and see what happens. And that means going out on my new scooter today rather than read up anymore about this stuff. You've not annoyed me. My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
Secondly, as I wrote. If you're interviewed, just listen to your solicitor once they've had disclosure. That includes what to say during interview and surrounding legal processes / procedures. You're potentially ending up at a Magistrates court, not one of the Senior Courts where they're going to be pouring over the Codes Of Practice and whether an unrecorded phone call adhered to them or not.
You're a normal member of the public and should use normal language that you'd use to describe things. If you have to raise self-defence, the fundamental part of the law is 'an honestly held belief'.
It comes across as honest if you describe things as, "I hit him back because I was scared he was going to hurt me. He attacked me after I did nothing wrong. I honestly thought he was going to cause me a serious injury."
As opposed to, "Well, as per my pile of notes, in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attached may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense he may do, but only do what is reasonably necessary", which comes across as a post-incident disingenuous Google-fest.
Hope you get out and enjoy the sun. I'll stop looking up rules/laws as I can't see it being too helpful right now.
La Liga said:
My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
The op is a HGV driver who works for supermarkets and delivers/ has delivered to the supermarket where this incident took place.
I'm not sure his employers would look too favourably on it if he admitted/ was found guilty of assaulting the security staff.
As far as the "investigation" goes, my opinion, so far, is that the OIC is looking for the quickest and easiest way of getting rid of this job.
That really isn't how the matter should be dealt with.
Red 4 said:
La Liga said:
My post contains advice and a reality check. The reality check being it's not a very serious matter so don't be surprised if it's not being resolved too quickly / every enquiry is undertaken prior to an interview (if there even is one). It's not my perspective, it's objectively minor. It may not be to you, but no one external will ever care about it as much as you do.
The op is a HGV driver who works for supermarkets and delivers/ has delivered to the supermarket where this incident took place.
I'm not sure his employers would look too favourably on it if he admitted/ was found guilty of assaulting the security staff.
As far as the "investigation" goes, my opinion, so far, is that the OIC is looking for the quickest and easiest way of getting rid of this job.
That really isn't how the matter should be dealt with.
milkround said:
Cheers. That all makes total sense tbh. And I think the key thing is that it's a big deal to me but not to anyone else. I shall get on with my life and see what happens. And that means going out on my new scooter today rather than read up anymore about this stuff.
Hope you get out and enjoy the sun. I'll stop looking up rules/laws as I can't see it being too helpful right now.
You're welcome and I think you're best trying to put it to one side and await the next development if that's possible. Hope you get out and enjoy the sun. I'll stop looking up rules/laws as I can't see it being too helpful right now.
La Liga said:
As I say, the OP should follow his legal advice if it gets to that stage. If there's a way to negate any allegation e.g. raise self-defence for any force used, then he obviously he should follow that path.
It's a mistake that's been made before, as I suspect you already knowhutchst said:
La Liga said:
As I say, the OP should follow his legal advice if it gets to that stage. If there's a way to negate any allegation e.g. raise self-defence for any force used, then he obviously he should follow that path.
It's a mistake that's been made before, as I suspect you already knowLa Liga said:
'm not sure what you mean.
I assume you're referring to Sowande, who lost his appeal against conviction in the Magistrates Court for assaulting two shop security guards that tried to prevent him from shoplifting. He tried to raise self defence in the appeal, but was prevented as he hadn't raised it at his original trial. It also helps explain why R v Self might not help here.hutchst said:
La Liga said:
'm not sure what you mean.
I assume you're referring to Sowande, who lost his appeal against conviction in the Magistrates Court for assaulting two shop security guards that tried to prevent him from shoplifting. He tried to raise self defence in the appeal, but was prevented as he hadn't raised it at his original trial. It also helps explain why R v Self might not help here.I'm just talking in the generally about self-defence rather than applying anything as specific.
hutchst said:
I assume you're referring to Sowande, who lost his appeal against conviction in the Magistrates Court for assaulting two shop security guards that tried to prevent him from shoplifting. He tried to raise self defence in the appeal, but was prevented as he hadn't raised it at his original trial. It also helps explain why R v Self might not help here.
So I've tried to google this. But either I'm not smart enough to find it or it's hidden as a legal people only thing. I've found a few links from Barristers websites who were involved all saying it meant different things. Are you willing to give an overview or provide the judgement?
Cheers.
P.S - don't think La Liga was referring to that. Just trying to give me good advice in a general sense with the ability to see both sides of the fence here (due to his previous job) and also keeping things in perspective. Which I fully admit I have lost a bit here.
milkround said:
So I've tried to google this. But either I'm not smart enough to find it or it's hidden as a legal people only thing.
I've found a few links from Barristers websites who were involved all saying it meant different things. Are you willing to give an overview or provide the judgement?
.
It is part of the problem that La Liga has highlighted in taking your own legal advice as confirmation bias can creep in. In Sowande it was held that the Lawful arrest by anyone other than a constable under 24(1)(b) did not require that actual indictable offence had taken place. Which may ring a bell? I've found a few links from Barristers websites who were involved all saying it meant different things. Are you willing to give an overview or provide the judgement?
.
It may also be relevant that it also held that, making off and avoiding detection, could constitute reasonable grounds in and of itself that someone was committing an indictable offence.
That's why I was trying to get the sequence of events nailed down as that could help you but it got lost in the noise.
Your original post said
"so am told very firmly come with me"
and
grabbing me in the car park. Pushing me. Even attempts to twist my arm behind my back. Tells me I can't go anywhere
Either or both of these would probably constitute an arrest.
If the person arresting is depriving you of your liberty to go where you please by words or action then that's an arrest (Spicer V Holt) & (Alderson V Booth)
It's not instantaneous it continues until released or dealt with in a court (Which is relevant here because it means the right to use force continues) (Mohammed-Holgate v Duke)
Graveworm said:
It is part of the problem that La Liga has highlighted in taking your own legal advice as confirmation bias can creep in. In Sowande it was held that the Lawful arrest by anyone other than a constable under 24(1)(b) did not require that actual indictable offence had taken place. Which may ring a bell?
It may also be relevant that it also held that, making off and avoiding detection, could constitute reasonable grounds in and of itself that someone was committing an indictable offence.
That's why I was trying to get the sequence of events nailed down as that could help you but it got lost in the noise.
Your original post said
"so am told very firmly come with me"
and
grabbing me in the car park. Pushing me. Even attempts to twist my arm behind my back. Tells me I can't go anywhere
Either or both of these would probably constitute an arrest.
If the person arresting is depriving you of your liberty to go where you please by words or action then that's an arrest (Spicer V Holt) & (Alderson V Booth)
It's not instantaneous it continues until released or dealt with in a court (Which is relevant here because it means the right to use force continues) (Mohammed-Holgate v Duke)
Fair enough. I'm happy to learn. I might not like what I find but it's good to know the score. It may also be relevant that it also held that, making off and avoiding detection, could constitute reasonable grounds in and of itself that someone was committing an indictable offence.
That's why I was trying to get the sequence of events nailed down as that could help you but it got lost in the noise.
Your original post said
"so am told very firmly come with me"
and
grabbing me in the car park. Pushing me. Even attempts to twist my arm behind my back. Tells me I can't go anywhere
Either or both of these would probably constitute an arrest.
If the person arresting is depriving you of your liberty to go where you please by words or action then that's an arrest (Spicer V Holt) & (Alderson V Booth)
It's not instantaneous it continues until released or dealt with in a court (Which is relevant here because it means the right to use force continues) (Mohammed-Holgate v Duke)
I walked towards the door. He said 'show me your receipt' I said 'I don't hve one'. He said 'come with me'. I walked out. (Mistake). He then comes behind me and stands in front of me and tried grabbing me. At that point, silliness ensues and he says some offensive stuff and it goes south.
If that is the case he also arrested my partner. Which is news to her. As neither of us had stolen anything. And he did let her go once he'd seen the receipt. So he arrested us both, I escaped and he then dearrested her if that's what really happened. Bizarre if you ask me.
Time will tell. Morally I don't think I did anything too wrong. Legally I honestly don't know. I still won't be admitting I assaulted him though.
Do you have a copy of this judgement? Aside from the personal side of this I'm finding it rather interesting to learn more about this sort of stuff. Also enjoying finding out how to change the cambelt on a megane CC but in a different sort of way.
Alpinestars said:
I’ve not followed this, but just read the first and last pages. OP were you subject of a Citizen’s arrest by the security guard, or have I missed the point?
Who knows? I wasn't told I was. I didn't think I was. But apparently, the actions mean I must have been. With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
milkround said:
Who knows? I wasn't told I was. I didn't think I was. But apparently, the actions mean I must have been.
With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
I thought under PACE, amongst other conditions, an arrest other than by a constable had to be for an indictable offence. Not having a parking ticket does not fall into that category. With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
Maybe this point has already been covered?
And under common law, you’d have been required to either be breaching the peace, or about to.
Red 4 said:
If you were "arrested", op, then the security guard would need reasonable grounds to do so.
No receipt (on its own) is not reasonable grounds.
But I have been told there is case law saying that if I 'make off' which I assume is walking off after he said come with me then that is reasonable grounds etc. No receipt (on its own) is not reasonable grounds.
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a police officer. I'm a normal person who went to the shops and paid for my shopping.
I don't want to be melodramatic. And I know this is only really important to me. But it's not nice and I am very unhappy. I can't concentrate at work and have even been sniping at my partner. I even had the audacity to blame her for this. When he first grabbed me and tried twisting my arm behind my back I told him he was assaulting me. I didn't have my phone so told her to call the police. She was in too much shock to do anything. That sounds ludicrous to most people. But we are not the sort of people who get into this situation normally.
It's easy for some on here to rip me to bits about what I could have done and what I should have done. But I didn't steal anything. I never would dream of doing so. And I didn't set out to hurt anyone. Whilst my behaviour was not perfect I feel that the whole system is a joke and against me.
At this point in time I really don't feel like I can win. I have a police officer ignoring the rules she is meant to obey (by my reading/side of the story). I have a security guard who thinks he can attack people and homophobically abuse them for no reason. And apparently, there is case law saying I have broken the law.
For what it's worth I have done many things which are worthy of me being labelled a criminal. I've had fights when I was younger. I've driven far too fast. I've used substances in my youth which were unlawful. I've even drank too much and driven a vehicle (in Asia on a motorbike and totally stupid). And I've even very recently had an accident I fully blame myself for in a truck which is making me question if I should drive at artic ever again (no one was hurt, fortunately). But what I have never done is gone to the shops to steal and attack security guards on the way out.
So I'm taking the view that I'll tell the truth and live with the consequences. If it doesn't work out for me I'll not die, and I'll live with it. But if I admitted guilt when I knew I did nothing wrong I honestly don't think I could look myself in the mirror. I am very honest with myself. I'm not proud about some of my behaviour in the past. But I can't sacrifice my belief system to make life easy right now.
Alpinestars said:
milkround said:
Who knows? I wasn't told I was. I didn't think I was. But apparently, the actions mean I must have been.
With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
I thought under PACE, amongst other conditions, an arrest other than by a constable had to be for an indictable offence. Not having a parking ticket does not fall into that category. With a bit of luck I'll find out if I was actually arrested or not once I go to the Police station. I'll also have to ask the PC if my partner was arrested - as we both like to travel she will need to know this incase we go to America/Canada.
It's a stange world. Arrested by security guard. Escaped from his lawful custody. Was then called and arranged meeting with police via email to avoid an arrest. Life is too short to worry about such things - it's all bananas to me now.
Maybe this point has already been covered?
And under common law, you’d have been required to either be breaching the peace, or about to.
The tills give you the option. I thought, as usual, I said no. He asked me in an aggressive manner 'Show me your receipt'. I said I didn't have one (as I didn't think I did). So he said 'come with me'. Looking back (hindsight) I didn't like his attitude so walked out. And then he chased after me and started going mental.
Long story short I went to the ground and got up and shoved/punched him back. I put the forward stroke there because I truly don't think I punched anyone. But I do know I shoved him.
So he will say it was for theft which is indictable. But I never stole anything. Jumping forward he grabbed hold of my partner (apparently me not fighting him off her even though it was just him holding her arm makes me less of a man on here) - but she saw the receipt was knocked to the floor. After seeing all the stuff we had was on the receipt he let her go.
At present we don't know what he has said. The police have made it clear I am not being investigated for theft. They have also said that from the CCTV it appears I assaulted him. Time will tell on this one.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff