security guard rules ?

[totallyinnocent]

They rely at least in part on the Nottingham Court Tesco matter

 

I can't find any details of these cases other than their general titles, Tesco v Kular (1998), HMV v Plummer (1998), and Littlewoods v Ishafaq (2000). This suggests to me that they are proceedings in a low court so don't infer legal precedent? I saw another firm offer up Borders & Others v. Jordan (2004) too.

 

If this were test cases then they should be something that BAILII gets to have a copy of the judgement.

[JonCris]

I can't find any details of these cases other than their general titles, Tesco v Kular (1998), HMV v Plummer (1998), and Littlewoods v Ishafaq (2000). This suggests to me that they are proceedings in a low court so don't infer legal precedent? I saw another firm offer up Borders & Others v. Jordan (2004) too.

 

If this were test cases then they should be something that BAILII gets to have a copy of the judgement.

 

A circuit judge was persuaded to hear their cases hence them using them to frighten victims

[mightymouse_69]

There is no such thing as an arrestable offence any more.

[totallyinnocent]

There is no such thing as an arrestable offence any more.

 

I am new to these forums but since joining I've seen a lot on this particular subject. I know I've added to it a bit.

 

I think a single sticky with the final reality would be good. I guess we aren't really too concerned about the initial arrest by a citizen based on reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed? I'm concerned that PACE 28 and then PACE 301A especially don't often then follow in the stories posted. You may then end up in their quiet office for an interrogation with no police involvement.

 

I also believe this case must have a bearing too Self, R. v [1992] EWCA Crim 2 (25 February 1992) on the whole issue of mistakenly taking things.

[mightymouse_69]

Section 28 of PACE only applies to arrest by a constable.

 

I am not sure what you mean when you say 301A ?!

[mightymouse_69]

Sorry - I see that you mean 30(1)a

[totallyinnocent]

Section 28 of PACE only applies to arrest by a constable.

 

Here is the text from the Act

 

"28 Information to be given on arrest.

 

(1)Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.

 

(2)Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.

 

(3)Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.

 

(4)Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.

 

(5)Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed—

 

(a)that he is under arrest; or

 

(b)of the ground for the arrest,

 

if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given."

 

It is clear that other people than a constable as per 28.2 must comply. Or do you have a case where this has been tested, if so please provide link to it on BAILII. This isn't the same as requiring that a full caution is given as the ordinary citizen wouldn't be expected to know this. Just a simple "I'm arresting you because I suspect you of shoplifting."

[totallyinnocent]

I am not sure what you mean when you say 301A ?!

 

Again the Act seems clear here too. If you get arrested you need to be taken to the cop shop (unless a police constable released you). Perhaps there is case law here too, would be nice to know. Too many times the security guards effect an arrest under section 24A but then fail to follow through. This would seem then more akin to the act of a kidnapper!

 

"...30 Arrest elsewhere than at police station.

 

(1)Subsection (1A) applies where a person is, at any place other than a police station—

 

(a)arrested by a constable for an offence, or

 

(b)taken into custody by a constable after being arrested for an offence by a person

other than a constable

.

 

(1A)The person must be taken by a constable to a police station as soon as practicable after the arrest.

..."

[mightymouse_69]

I'm sorry, I am completely wrong - which should teach me not to try and multi-task ever again.

 

As for 30(1)a - I understand it, just got a bit lost when you referred to it as 301A!

[totallyinnocent]

So you see the argument (whether this is right or not I can't say) that if they had reasonable grounds to arrest you in the first place then if they don't call the police they must have held you without authority.

 

If this is part of their training then it would suggest a conspiracy to falsely imprison on behalf of their employer under the s.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 surely?

[JonCris]

So you see the argument (whether this is right or not I can't say) that if they had reasonable grounds to arrest you in the first place then if they don't call the police they must have held you without authority.

 

If this is part of their training then it would suggest a conspiracy to falsely imprison on behalf of their employer under the s.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 surely?

 

 

Quite if they don't comply with the Act & as is usual 'invite' you to come to their quiet office they are also guilty of kidnap. Everything which stems from the unlawful/illegal arrest is poisoned leading to further illegal acts by the security staff

[mightymouse_69]

Quite if they don't comply with the Act & as is usual 'invite' you to come to their quiet office they are also guilty of kidnap.

 

I don't see how.

 

I can't see anything wrong with making an invite to go to an office to discuss the matter. So long as they do not use force or fraud to detain the person, no offence is committed.

[buddie84]

hey guys , you are correct the security officers in supermarkets like asda/tesco etc do not have the right to search anyone but they can ask but you can always say no and they cant do anything plus they have to see you taking the goods and trying to hide them and cant go by the supermarkets own staff due to if person didnt steal they counter sue the supermarket and guard with hefty fine but also i have noticed few guards in asda in scotland are unlincensed or they not showing there sia badges with is a offense by the way so even if you did steal and guard didnt or not showing their badge in public view they cant do anything to you and can report them to sia and they will get fines (asda/guard/securitycompany-- all of them)

 

reason i know this is i was shopping centre security officer now moved to corporate side

[buddie84]

talking about football security guards only few can actually escort you out the one with sia badges which ,must be showing public again due to sia laws if they dnt have a sia badge then they are only stewards which cant do nothing to you

 

experienced football guard for rangers and celtic

[JonCris]

I don't see how.

 

I can't see anything wrong with making an invite to go to an office to discuss the matter. So long as they do not use force or fraud to detain the person, no offence is committed.

 

 

To 'invite' someone to their office is irrelevant IF that person is under the impression they have little or no choice but to submit or are not advised they don't have to then the offence of kidnap is committed AND if they then demand the person sign a document BEFORE being allowed to leave that's hostage taking.

 

An eminent member of the judiciary described it as pre litigation blackmail

Edited September 12, 2010 by JonCris

[JonCris]

Last comment repeated in error

[totallyinnocent]

To 'invite' someone to their office is irrelevant IF that person is under the impression they have little or no choice but to submit or are not advised they don't have to then the offence of kidnap is committed AND if they then demand the person sign a document BEFORE being allowed to leave that's hostage taking.

 

An eminent member of the judiciary described it as pre litigation blackmail

 

I guess my other thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276418-What-does-a-police-warrant-card-look-like also points to them acting like they have authority to make you go to the back of the store.

 

It isn't always the case that to be "invited" somewhere is a good thing, e.g. a party, if someone "invited you outside" you might think you'd be duffed up.

 

If they really wanted to be professional, they would set up an above board training regime and code of conduct for these staff. They should perform minimal interaction with you while they wait for the police. They should not talk to you etc. They need to ensure your welfare while they wait though. They would be advised to prove they did all this later. Hence keep you in sight of CCTV.

 

There must be enough information out there, we are now several years on from the 1998 cases, for the stores to be in a position of "ought to know" about the goings on of their staff and their agents. The store is therefore likely to be liable for their illegal actions Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009).

 

The basic understanding of what should occur in such situations should be taught in school as part of citizenship lessons. This might go a long way to keeping everyone on the right path.

[JonCris]

Lets be clear civil recovery is NOT meant as a deterrent as they claim if it did there would huge signs all over the shop warning customers that its practised. CR is seen as another highly profitable income stream in much the same way the banks penalty charges which now funds free banking allegedly