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

[JonCris]

tiler1 I do hope you have misunderstood her because a civilian/guard has no powers allowing them to search you............... unless you consent which it appears you didn't

[tiler1]

yes i am fully aware she is incorrect, at the time of the incident i was thinking the same and although he never asked or attempted to search me, i would have refused anyway due to his demeanor. i was willing to fully co-operate with the police, however surprisingly they never searched me either and just took the guards word for it.

 

**paragraph deleted**

 

the only other thing i can think of is that the police were pulling a fast one during interview saying he had stated he searched me but it wasnt actually in his statement and they were trying to catch me out someway. however if that is the case and the guard dint search me and neither did the police,how an they possibly say the items were in my possession????

Edited November 8, 2008 by tiler1

[Daring Fire]

tiler1, I would delete the paragraph in your last post that refers to a question your solicitor may ask in court.

 

Your opening post has already identified the store as B&Q. It is not inconceivable that this information could reach the security guard. That question relies on surprise and would be easily deflected if it was expected.

[tiler1]

daring fire, i hear what u say. even if the guard was to find out from this forum somehow, he would still have no idea what was there or what to say. however i have removed that paragraph just to be on safe side.

[fbnts]

Just subscribing

[tiler1]

just a quick update for those who have had an interest in this thread.

 

returned on bail today and was told i needed to be re-interviewed due to another statement being obtained.

it was from the second security guard involved who was one of the ones who helped drag me from the van.

 

he has said that regarding the assault on the other guard who initially grabbed me at the van, that once i was taken inside the store and being marched to the security office (with one guards arms round my waist, one with my right arm up my back, another member of staff with my left arm twisted up my back and another member of staff following for good measure) that i punched the first security guard in the face SEVERAL times.

 

this is not visible at all on the good cctv coverage and the guard who i am supposed to have hit has not even mentioned this in his statement.

 

he has said that on the car park, prior to anyone else arriving, that i kicked him in the leg and stomach and tried to choke him!!

but there were no marks left at all.

 

suely if i had punched him in the face several times, being the big hefty build i am, i would have let some marks and surely this would have been detailed in his statement. again this was not on the cctv coverage as u would expect.

 

it seems the two guards are now pulling in different directions as to what actually happened and their statements dont corroboate.

 

regards the security office cctv which i requested was included in the evidence, apparantly is not available as there is no camera, although there was one on the wall when i was in there. fancy a security office, where persons detained on suspicion of an offence are taken to be held until police arrive, not to have camera coverage??

 

the police were pulling a fast one in the first interview when they put to me the guard had searched me and found the items. they have told me today he has said in his statement that he asked me to empty my pockets and i poduced the items, which didnt happen at all and had there have been cctv in the office would have backed me up. funnily no-one else, although there were 3 others present has made a statement to say i had pulled the items from my pocket. how strange.

 

the police have now re-bailed me until 16th dec. as they obviously havent any or enough evidence to charge with the theft or assault. god knows what they will bring up next time i go back????????????

 

i am also changing solictior as she failed to show up this morn even though she had promised to be there if i was being re-interviewed and when she was contacted to attend told me she was in court with another matter. she offered her advice over the phone, so ive binned her now and am going with a different sol!

[noomill060]

What a nightmare. I hope you find a better solicitor!

 

Keep us informed and keep your chin up, mate.

 

 

In the first interview they claim the guard "searched you" and *found* items belonging to the store.

 

This is obviously a physical act, intentionally "done" to you by another civilian and quite illegal. If they went in Court with that as evidence, well it wouldnt take long to show that any "evidence" from this would probably be inadmissable.

 

In the second interview, they now say you were invited to empty your pockets, which you willingly did, in amongst the debris and detritus you produced, were items they claim belonged to the store.

 

This is a different tack- clearly, they now say that "evidence" was provided by you, willingly emptying your pockets, but that no other witness to this alleged event backs up either tale in their statement.

 

Have you sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for all images and other person data they hold, or did you just politely ask them for it?

 

 

I think if they were going to charge you with ANYTHING, they would have done so by now.

 

I expect the CPS wanted a second interview before giving the go ahead to charge you or not, hoping for a confession from you.

 

Given that there is a clear discrepancy with what you were told in statements given, I reckon this muppet has been invited to change his statement by the Police in order to fit in with the laws of evidence.

 

They were clutching at straws hoping you would bottle it and admit guilt on being confronted with a witness statement ( and being the criminal mastermind they seem to think you are!!)

 

As you didnt admit the crime (presumably, because you are innocent of this alleged heist of the century) they have gone back to the CPS to ask what to do next.

 

 

The CPS dont usually advise charging anyone unless they are pretty damn sure of winning.

Edited November 17, 2008 by noomill060

[SickofA&L]

Just to let you know that half my family are or were in the police force and when they go to shoplifting offences they ask for all cctv evidence whilst at the store....in my area anyway and apologies to security staff that are posting on here who I am sure are decent people but my uncle jokes about some security guards only having the job as they have huge power complexes and low IQ's....again a personal opinion and not a slant on the industry as a whole.

I think you were probably one of the unfortunate few who has suffered at the hands of a 'security guard' as described by my uncle

[funkyparott]

I have served for 3.5 years on the force.

 

In my experience, an alarming number of solicitors (more so the legal aid ones) are not worth their money - some shocking. I would not have them representing me. It is unacceptable that the solicitor thought the guard had a right to search you under any circumstances.

The search in itself may amount to an assault if if was without your consent.

 

You need to get some recommendations on a decent solicitor.

 

I suspect CPS will advise NFA on the matter.

 

If you want to presue this in civil law you will need a comptent solicitor. You will need all the evidence the police have collected. I suspect they won't have carried out an extensive investigation. You may want to re-check for CCTV cameras in the area. You solicitor can help obtaining further statements for you.

Edited November 19, 2008 by funkyparott

[noomill060]

Best of luck for tomorrow tiler1

[flyingdoc]

Good luck in court - they had no right to do what they did in any respects.

From the facts in your original post the security guards were guilty of assault, battery and false imprisonment.

Even IF you had stolen the goods you were alleged to have stolen they would still be guilty of false imprisonment.

 

If a person is going to make a citizens arrest he must still do so in accordance with the police and criminal evidence act - specifically in your case section 28 has been breached.

S28 says that a person must be informed of the fact of his arrest, and of the reason for his arrest - at the time of, or as soon as is reasonably practical thereafter.

They may claim that you were resisting but even if that is to be believed (which I do not) they should have immediately told you of the fact and reason of the arrest as soon as you were subdued.

 

They certainly had no right of search upon you without consent. which would - by definition mean that even if the drill bits were in your pockets(which again I do not believe) the evidence obtained will have been as a result of an illegal search and should be excluded by the judge.

 

The police seemed to act appropriately - based on the information that they were given by the security guards.

 

Good luck

[skonk]

This case has really interested me, as I used to work in a DIY store called Taskers, based in Liverpool. They are the UK's biggest independent DIY store, and always battling with B&Q over prices, etc. We were told by management that, if the security guard needed help in restraining a suspected thief, we were all to help him by whatever means necessary!!

 

I refused to be a part of this, and was warned that it could jeopardise my job!! I told them that no way I would restrain anybody who was suspected of stealing, and asked for them to put this "request" in writing, which they backed away from. No way in hell would I have left the store, gone to the car park and helped drag someone back!!

 

I heard stories from members of staff who had been there for many years, about certain times when thieves were restrained, and it was shocking!! This whole incident sounds like something that has probably happened in my old job.

 

I hope you take B&Q and the so called security guards for everything they deserve. Not only that, are you pushing for some kind of action towards the members of staff who, basically, assaulted you? As someone posted previously, go to the papers, do whatever you can. I seriously hope you take this lot to the cleaners. I shall check back in to this thread and see how it's going. Keep your chin up, mate!!...

[tiler1]

thanks for all your good wishes recently

 

i am back on bail at the police station on tuesday am (16TH), so will keep you informed of the outcome!!

[flyingdoc]

If you were bailed to appear at a police station I suspect that they is a possibility they are just going to offer you a police caution.

The question is whether or not to accept such a caution and risk being charged and taken to court.

Your solicitor would probably advise to take the caution if offered, but doing so would mean effectively admitting the alleged offence.

If you refuse the caution the police then have the decision whether to charge you or not- they may decide either way.

I would like to think that in your situation I would take my chances and tell them to stuff their caution - fight the case in court and then sue the store.

 

But Im not sure that if I were really in your position I dont know what I would do - probably wimp out and accept the caution.

 

just my thoughts

[tiler1]

i will certainly not be accepting any caution. i am totally innocent of this and will fight it all the way.

 

the police have admitted to me on previously attending that the reason they have bailed me is to gather futher evidence as they basically have not got evidence to charge me with at present. there are also some discrepancies in the two statements from the security guard.

[noomill060]

Good stuff. Keep us informed.

[tiglet]

Good luck with this - I personally would damn their eyes and see them in court!

[skonk]

Glad to hear you're not going to accept the caution if it's offered! I'd do the same in your position as well. A lot of people would accept it though, and that's what they're hoping you do, as they fully know they don't have a leg to stand on.

[tiler1]

returned this morn tp police sttion only to be told i was being charged with shoplifting and common assault!! cannot believe it.

 

i asked what further evidence they had gathered and all they would tell me is that they had taken further statements from other members of staff. i asked if i would be re-interviewed, obviously to put my side forward, but they said it was not neccesary and would be dealt with at court.

 

just dont know what cock and bull stories they have come up with now, but must be enough to convince cps to roll with it.

 

due in court 5th jan, just waiting for solictior to get copies of statements now to see what has ben said.

[tiglet]

Oh honey. Well, let's see what they have said and what evidence they claim to have to back it up.

[fedup74]

Just wishing you all the best with this. They have acted abysmally (sp?) and hopefully the court will see this. You have lots of support on here:)

[noomill060]

Gutted for you.

 

However, the war goes on and they will have to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Thinking of you.

[skonk]

I can't believe they are charging you! They're all basically trying to cover each others backs, when in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if something doesn't add up in all their statements. I hope you've got a good solicitor, and as others have said, you have all the support from us on here.

 

Try not to let them ruin your xmas. You know you're in the right, and you will get your chance to state your case, with all the information that your solicitor should get for you.

 

 

Good luck, mate...

[fbnts]

oh bloody hell! I can't believe the police are running with this!?

 

Have they not done anything about the unlawful arrest?

 

Tom

[tiler1]

they have not mentioned anything, however my solicitor is waiting until it goes to trial to pounce on them with the force / method used.