B&Q Security dragged me out of ny van over bogus theft assumption

[noomill060]

So what on earth is the OPs solicitor talking about when he says these muppets are within their rights??

 

The OP has stated that thye planted these drills on him- perverting the course of justice.

[tiler1]

the guard did not plant the drills on me, when he came out of the store he had some in his hand which i believe to be ones i had looked at then put back and was saying to me "uve got more" which i can only presume he thought i had put some back and taken some others.

 

when in the office although he has said in his statement he searched me, he didnt, but later told police i had the drills concealed and he had found them, although these wre the ones he had been in possession of.

at no time did i have any items on my person.

[caledfwlch]

To the OP If I were you, I would go straight back down the police station with your solicitor and make a counter complaint of assault, kidnap and unlawful search. Get a statement from A&E of your injuries, photographs of your damaged clothes.

 

Surely a Citizens Arrest is not actually worth the paper its printed on anymore, especially with human rights act? a few weeks ago there was a newspaper article where an Employer and some employees suspecting another member of staff of theft, grabbed him, put a sign on him saying im a thief, and frogmarched him to the nearest police station. For the actual "Citizens Arrest" they are all on bail for assault, and will probably face who knows how many penalties, legal and financial for the rest.

 

Also - I thought a security guard had to stop you before leaving the premises, surely the CCTV footage alone is exonerating? Wouldnt an unlawful search also be assault? Of course, the security guard then has the choice of admitting to an unlawful search, or of falsifying a statement to the police that he carried out the search!

 

My next step would also be to Police complaints, a witness has admitted in a statement to breaking the law, and has not been arrrested?

 

I would then go to the press, national and local, and REALLY drag B&Q through the mud, and as suggested by other posts, take EVERY legal and civil action possible.

 

I also strongly believe that the footage of the van incident should be more than enough for a case of assault to be made.

[emsgeorge]

Gyzmo - take a look at the law.

 

Pace, and specifically socpa.

 

Security have the power of arrest. Its is effectively a citizens arrest, but comes with the same powers of use of force etc.

 

Don't start giving bad advice that someone could read and fight with shop security - and end up in court facing assault charges over.

 

There is stated case law with regards to this - even if the detention turns out to be unlawful, as long as it was an honest felf belief by security at the time that the ocffence was complete, then any violence offered by the suspected shoplifter may still result in charges.

 

Even if there was no shoplifting itself, there might of been criminal damage, attempt theft etc etc - as long as there's an indictable offence, there's a power of arrest.

 

To the op: search is unlawful unless you consented to it. He will probably argue to the court that he asked you, and you consented. If it goes to court, this might help your case, it might throw doubt onto the validity of his actions, however, it may be simply seen as you trying to muddy the facts.

 

Do a dpa request for the footage. Get your solicitor to ask if you feel it would be better handled.

 

Take photos of any injuries or marks.

Keep any clothing damaged etc. All this will help if you decide to sue.

 

As jonchris has said - see if you can get the persons name, then look them up on the sia website to make sure they are licenced. In house staff (those employed directly by b and q) don't have to be licenced, but thwy don't have any security staff in house, they contract out. Lodge security used to do it, and g4s have contracts in london stores. A quick phone call to the store should find out which one supplies to the store in question.

 

Good luck with your return on bail, hopefully they will just nfa it.

 

I would like to say though, some of us guards aren't just meat heads with 2 brain cells, some of us take time to learn law and powers, and most of all - communication skills !!. No loss to the industry if someone like that gets fired....

 

If it is g4s - I've got their training materials in. Pdf document. Its about 2 pages long!!.

 

If you want to prove what they should know about arrests, use of force etc, I've got loads of documents. Just ask !

[JonCris]

Spot on emsgeorge

 

I also think it would be helpful that, rather than wait for specific requests, you copy & paste the docs to which you refer to this thread/site

[JonCris]

With regard to the offering of violence by the accused my only proviso would be that for there to be an offence committed in resisting arrest the guard would have to have been wearing a uniform.

 

In other words the accused would have to be fully aware he/she was resisting a security guard not some nutter trying to abduct them otherwise they would have a clear defence for offering violence in return

[gyzmo]

I stand by what I say. A security guard has no more special treatment than any other person. The unifrom makes no difference. The job description makes no difference. If you are assaulted you have every right to resist.

 

And in terms of reasonable force, might I suggest that the theft, if it were indeed true, of a few bits of metal - the cost of which must be in the region of a good couple of quid - does not justify the action whatsoever taken.

 

No life was at risk and there was no ris of injury. It was property. Very little property at that. It wasn't some dear little old lady being mugged in the street. It wasnt a grand heist of gold bullion. There is no justification for using such force in the scenario.

 

And the fact that he is a security guard, in uniform (just to use the justification given) in my view means that the guard should have been aware of this and is more guilty before, at least morally, in his actions.

 

The event described is, frankly, despicable.

[emsgeorge]

Gyzmo - no problem with your moral stance, but simply that others might read your comments about 'no powers', go and nick something, and resist under the misaprehension that they 'can't be touched or arrested by security '. Some security will take the time to explin the errors of their judgement. Some will simply drag the person back into the store. I wouldn't want someone to read this forum, and end up getting injured because of it.

 

To the OP - One other thing to think of - BandQ use civil recovery. The security will have already processed the forms, and you will get a letter seeking restitution for 'your wrong'.

 

From memory, they use a company called RLP. Don't worry about any demands for money, make sure you put in as part of your complaint for them to make sure civil recovery action is halted.

 

I am being told that their cctv is broadband linked in most stores, so they will be able to download it and view it from their head office. Get that ball rolling asap, or the footage might be overwritten by the system. It won't be able to be deleated by the security on site, but dewpening on the hard drive size, might be overwritten after 7, 14, or 31 days.

 

I will scrub and post the guidelines up as soon as I can.

 

Op - can you either tell us the store location, or give them a ring to find out which company covers it. I can then see if I've got (or know anyone who has) access to their training materials.

[majik]

majik

 

you say you carry out random searches with the persons permission but are these on the spot checks and not necessarily people suspected of theft because the guard believes to have seen an item be concealed upon that person. does this still apply if the person has been detained/ had a citizens arrest carried out.

 

We actually carry out random searches that are also based on what we have seen on CCTV so some are not always as random as people would think.

Only a police officer can carry out a search with the searches permission.

A citizens arrest is null and void unless a police officer takes over. We are personally told to never carru out a cizitens arrest due to the problems of the police not taking it over.

[gyzmo]

I have been "arrested" twice in my life by security guards. In both cases it cost them their jobs (and in one case a sting in hospital due to being injured when I hurled him onto the floor after being grabbed. This guard, unsuccesfully, tried to sue me).

 

My stance is not just on a moral background - it is a legal one.

 

I do not get into fights unless I know I can win. I am rarely wrong. Where I in the OP's circumstances I would have reacted as I have done before. If it included the guard being injured then so be it.

 

I iterate again that a security guard has no more special powers than any other person. If one is affronted, one has a right to break free and, if necessary, to cause injury to that person is necessary to do so. That of course has to be argued in court. But I refer to what I said in terms of being right.

 

Th element of reasonableness so far is sorely lacking. As such, all else is irrelevant.

[gyzmo]

And just on this point of searches...

 

Suppose I, a stranger to you, stopped you on the street and demanded that I search you for no apparent reason. You would be quite right to tell me where to stick various objects within my person.

 

the same applies to a security guard. The uniform etc (at risk of boring myself and others) makes no difference. And by the way, I have yet to submit to a request to a security guard to be searched. I refuse point blank because I do not do anything to give any reasonable suspicion that I have done anything requiring a search.

 

As you may imagine, I can be a right a****ole at times. It serves me well being so.

[JonCris]

gyzmo clearly you know best but I would say if you read the posts that most you will see agree it was an appalling conduct by the guard & yes his power of arrest is civil like the rest of us

 

& yes he would have the power to restrain you using reasonable force but it would be very important that he was clearly ID'd as a security guard otherwise the subject could claim they thought they had been attacked

[emsgeorge]

Ok, how about we summerise it as this :

 

Security have no more powers than you or me on the street.

The only 'power' they could argue they have is to refuse the right of entry, or to eject a trespasser - only on land they are authorised to work on.

 

Every uk citizen has a power of arrest over another. Be they security, gardener, shop staff, cook, or cleaner.

 

They can only use this power of arrest for certain offences (defined as those that can be dealt with at crown court) - so, theft criminal damage, abh, gbh etc etc (to name but a common few).

 

The arresting person can use reasonable force to prevent the escape of the detained person, and can also use force to prevent then harming themselves or others. What is reasonable is defined by the magistrates or jury.

 

Security, and members of the public, have no right to search one another. Consented search may be allowed - but only by the detained person. Again, forced search may be an assault. Case law however makes exceptions - for instance - someone has a knife, and you don't want them pulling it out when in holding room. You can reach into their pocket to remove it - to prevent them harming you.

 

As I've said before, there's case law to back up the assumption that people who resist an arrest may end up being charged with assault, even if the original arrest offence wasn't proven. Why give yourself a possible court case over being a pain.

 

Gymzo - you chose to resist, and you knew you were in the right. My point to others is that even if you know, 100% that you have done nothing wrong, then you could end up being charged with assault for simply attempting to fight your way out of a situation - that you would have a hard time defending in court. Why put yourself through this. I would be quite happy to go back to the office, and sit smugly whilst they realise their mistake. Then think of all the money I was going to get !!!!

 

Perhaps its me, but security office then home to write my complaint sounds better than: fight, police van, police cell, bail, charge, court, expensive solicitor etc just to argue my case.

[emsgeorge]

Another quick thought after re reading the thread:

 

Knowing that most drill bits are sealed up these days - did you damage the packaging or security seals at all on any of the items ???

 

Very important question !!

 

He might have enough to have you for criminal damage. Its been through the courts before, and won.

 

I'm just trying to think like a guard in the poo pile, and how to get out of it !!.

 

If there's no damage etc, then you seem to home and dry, and can watch them wriggle as you take them to court.

[Bookworm]

The K-Zone: What is a citizen's arrest?

 

Very interesting article.

 

Regardless of the above stances, I think that one thing everyone can agree is that the use of force in this case was excessive?

 

Another thing I would look at would be not only get the security guard, but also the members of staff who assisted in this nasty little piece of vigilante injustice? What next, lynching?

 

Sorry if I react strongly to this, but earlier I answered someone whose SN child with sensory issues was grabbed hard enough to bruise, then armlocked out of a classroom by the deputy head of the school, so i'm just a little bit sensitive on the issue of mindless and disproportionate violence just now.

 

If it were me, I would not stop until the guard loses his job, quite possibly the staff involved too, depending on how involved they were, but at the very least severely disciplined, and sue B&Q's arse from here to eternity.

[patdavies]

Ok, how about we summerise it as this :

 

Security have no more powers than you or me on the street.

The only 'power' they could argue they have is to refuse the right of entry, or to eject a trespasser - only on land they are authorised to work on.

 

Every uk citizen has a power of arrest over another. Be they security, gardener, shop staff, cook, or cleaner.

 

They can only use this power of arrest for certain offences (defined as those that can be dealt with at crown court) - so, theft criminal damage, abh, gbh etc etc (to name but a common few).

 

The arresting person can use reasonable force to prevent the escape of the detained person, and can also use force to prevent then harming themselves or others. What is reasonable is defined by the magistrates or jury.

 

Security, and members of the public, have no right to search one another. Consented search may be allowed - but only by the detained person. Again, forced search may be an assault. Case law however makes exceptions - for instance - someone has a knife, and you don't want them pulling it out when in holding room. You can reach into their pocket to remove it - to prevent them harming you.

 

As I've said before, there's case law to back up the assumption that people who resist an arrest may end up being charged with assault, even if the original arrest offence wasn't proven. Why give yourself a possible court case over being a pain.

 

Gymzo - you chose to resist, and you knew you were in the right. My point to others is that even if you know, 100% that you have done nothing wrong, then you could end up being charged with assault for simply attempting to fight your way out of a situation - that you would have a hard time defending in court. Why put yourself through this. I would be quite happy to go back to the office, and sit smugly whilst they realise their mistake. Then think of all the money I was going to get !!!!

 

Perhaps its me, but security office then home to write my complaint sounds better than: fight, police van, police cell, bail, charge, court, expensive solicitor etc just to argue my case.

 

You seem to miss the point that "security office, home" is actually unlawful. Anybody making a citizen's arrest must hand the detainee over to a constable. Failure to do so, automatically IMO, makes such an arrest unlawful.

 

Also, AIUI, a person making a citizen's arrest - even a security guard in uniform - has no right to force anybody back to the store or anywhere else other than into the custody of a constable.

[JonCris]

No one is missing the point least of all ems & of course the guard must hand the accused over to a police officer but 1st the officer has to arrive on the scene & of course you don't have to wait until an officer arrives otherwise what would be the point of making a citizens arrest in the 1st place just leave it up to the officer

 

Also the accused can refuse to go back to the office & I'm at a loss to understand why anyone thinks so as that hasn't been claimed but if you willingly do it does not make the arrest unlawful

[JonCris]

Removed Double post

[caledfwlch]

No one is missing the point least of all ems & of course the guard must hand the accused over to a police officer but 1st the officer has to arrive on the scene & of course you don't have to wait until an officer arrives otherwise what would be the point of making a citizens arrest in the 1st place just leave it up to the officer

 

Also the accused can refuse to go back to the office & I'm at a loss to understand why anyone thinks so as that hasn't been claimed but if you willingly do it does not make the arrest unlawful

 

Reading the article posted further up, there is no mention of someone making a citizens arrest then having a right to "march" the arrestee to anywhere else, this surely then becomes kidnap? especially as the CCTV seems to clarify that nothing was taken. I think the OP needs to explore every single avenue, both civil and criminal against every single individual involved, including the arresting officers, who surely should have asked for the security office CCTV also, given that the OP says the security guard pulled them the bits out of his own pocket, then claimed to have discovered them in a search of the OP, and claims that the OP assaulted him.

 

Causing injury enough to merit a visit to A&E and further appointments is NOT the use of reasonable force by any means of the words, im sure if a police constable carried out such a violent arrest they would likely be suspended pending an internal affairs enquiry....

[tiler1]

just ansewring a couple of queries, no the bits which were presented by the guard which i am alledged to have taken did not have any damage on the packaging whatsoever and were fully sealed.

 

i did attempt to stay in my van until the police arrived but was dragged to the office, at one point one of the guards said "lets pick him up and carry him in" but the other guard said no.

 

i have now received a banning order for the oldham store and also a civil recovery charge of £137.50 which they can sing for. i will write to them to put it on hold until the matter is resolved with the police or courts.

 

what info am i entitled to of the security officers involved ie names and sia licence numbers, can they refuse to give it me over the phone or do i have to write to them?

thanks

[JonCris]

I would recommend that you get your solicitor to write formally to request the various evidence including the CCTV & the details of the guards. Also to confirm the name of their employer

[noomill060]

You've been given a lot of advice in this thread.

 

How far do you want to take this?

 

Have you asked your solicitor to explain precisely why he thinks they were entitled to do what they did?

[tiler1]

will be speaking to my solicitor on monday but have also detailed my concerns in a letter to her. not due back on bail till monday 17th but will make sure we are singing from the same song sheet before this. will also get her to write to b+q re cctv tapes etc. they are kept for 31 days.

[JonCris]

You've been given a lot of advice in this thread.

 

How far do you want to take this?

 

Have you asked your solicitor to explain precisely why he thinks they were entitled to do what they did?

 

 

I'll be interested in the answer to that question also

[tiler1]

she hasnt said that she thinks they were entitled to do what they did, the only concern i have with the solicitor is that she has said the guard has the right to search me if he believes theft has occured. this is the only concern i have, she has been spot on with everything else. will be asking her to explain why she thinks this/where she gets this info from.