Suspected Shoplifter dies after being tackled by Security Guard

[citizenB]

When Blunkett Bobbies/Plastic Police (PCSOs) make a Risk Assessment before even leaving the Police Station - it seems bizarre that retail security staff are diving in ?

[obiter dictum]

This security guard can be in big trouble, especially if he suspected bottle of booze had been lifted under forseeability of harm.

 

Tackling a guy to the ground with glass on that suspect is not a good idea

[king12345]

I'm surprised that the security guard tackled the poor guy to the ground.

Surely he was faster than the guy carrying a bag full of bottles and could have simply overrun him and stop him.

I suppose he went into Robocop mode and he's now in big trouble, as well as carrying the guilt for the rest of his days.

Dying for a few pounds really sucks!

[ericsbrother]

It is all a matter of speculation, it could equally be true that the weight of the stolen booze caused the shoplifter to overbalance when stopped. Inertia and all that. Tackled has more than one meaning, you can verbally tackle someone as in parliamentary question time.

[obiter dictum]

It will be causation that decides this

A+B = C

 

Did the security guard just see red mist and lose it

[theronstar]

What ever reason this has happened, maybe it could have been better handled, and if the security guard is charged with manslaughter, I think someone from Sainsbury so also be charged, maybe one of the directors

 

 

My reasons behind this, all employees should be properly trained, and in event of something happening they should know how to deal with this; so for instance this shop lifter, was there a need to tackle the guy, could the security guard just have asked the man to come back in the shop

 

Generally, supermarkets (and other establishments) hire security guards from an agency e.g. G4S.

 

Thus if anyone is charged it would be the security guard and the agency he works for - not Sainsbury's.

 

However, if the (hypothetical) Sainsbury's manager told the security guard to chase after a shoplifter then it would be easier to establish liability on the part of Sainsbury's. Alternatively, if the security guard has had a history of being heavy handed and Sainsbury's has not interfered with this then that would also help in establishing liability.

[obiter dictum]

Sorry but must disagree with the above. The Supermarket employed that third party security company under contract to undertake security policy. The supermarket will be ultimately reasposible for the actions of that third party under that contract.

 

It will be for the supermarket to confirm the contractor is qualified to undertake the terms of that contract under vicarious liability and proximity of relationship

Edited February 25, 2017 by obiter dictum

[Old Cogger]

Sorry but must disagree with the above. The Supermarket employed that third party security company under contract to undertake security policy. The supermarket will be ultimately reasposible for the actions of that third party under that contract.

 

It will be for the supermarket to confirm the contractor is qualified to undertake the terms of that contract under vicarious liability and proximity of relationship

 

if they were not responsible for a company acting on their behalf then why not engage the services of The Mafia!

[theronstar]

Companies employ contractors because they acquire opt outs in the process.

 

No requirement to pay sick pay, no requirement to pay holiday pay and in cases like this, no requirement to be liable for the misdeeds of the contractors.

 

If these opt outs were not available then there would be no incentive to outsource!

 

You are referring to a contract between the third party security company and the supermarket, obiter dictum. A shoplifter is almost certainly not a party to that contract! Consequently, he would have no rights under it!

[obiter dictum]

But the actions of that Security company are contracted with the supermarket. Proximity of relationship

Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990]

 

Contract with the shopifter has also been confirmed as both the supermarket and the security company owe a statutory duty of care with negligence.

 

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

[theronstar]

Those are both famous cases in establishing a 'duty of care'. The principle we are concerned with in this thread is 'vicarious liability'.

 

Vicarious liability does not always follow on from a duty of care.

 

Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd [1934] would be a worthwhile read.

[obiter dictum]

Yes but Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] now sets the precedent with that duty of care and causation being the key

 

If the security guard was aware he had stolen bottles of booze it can be confirmed under forseeeability of harm that they might break and cause injury

Edited February 26, 2017 by obiter dictum

[BazzaS]

Yes but Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] now sets the precedent with that duty of care and causation being the key

 

If the security guard was aware he had stolen bottles of booze it can be confirmed under forseeeability of harm that they might break and cause injury

 

Yet there is a public interest component here.

 

Is it really in the public interest for shoplifters to be able to say "I'll nick a bottle of booze : that will effectively prevent anyone trying to stop me"?

[obiter dictum]

If i recall under section 47 Offences against the Persons Act it will always be in the public interest to prosecute under the prosecutors code test with ABH. That is an assaut with a substantial injury has happened that is more than trivial

 

Mens rea is not required with ABH

Edited February 26, 2017 by obiter dictum

[theronstar]

Yes but Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] now sets the precedent with that duty of care and causation being the key

 

If the security guard was aware he had stolen bottles of booze it can be confirmed under forseeeability of harm that they might break and cause injury

 

Again, you are confusing two entirely separate legal principles. A duty of care does NOT imply vicarious liability. It is not in dispute that there could be a negligence claim against the security guard HIMSELF for the injury. As for whether a claim can be brought against the supermarket, that is a completely different line of argument.

 

A Judge would need to 'find' the supermarket vicariously liable for the actions of the security guard. If the security guard is not an employee - and he is not - he is just a contractor then the supermarket will only be found liable if they had a non-delegable duty to the shoplifter.

 

That, I am doubtful of. We'll have to see if a claim is filed.

[obiter dictum]

I understand what you are saying but when you apply the reasonable man test the evidence speaks for itself with Caparo.

 

But like you said that will be down to the coroner to decide

[theronstar]

Yet there is a public interest component here.

 

Is it really in the public interest for shoplifters to be able to say "I'll nick a bottle of booze : that will effectively prevent anyone trying to stop me"?

 

If a security guard asked me my two cents, I would just tell them to call the police and turn the CCTV records over to them. I have heard too many stories of security guards being arrested for attempting to apprehend a shoplifter and things going awry!

 

When I worked at a supermarket, a security guard tried to apprehend a shoplifter and the shoplifter jabbed at him with a drug needle! The shoplifter's jaw got broken in the process. Though the police did not arrest the security guard.

 

Their job is on low pay and zero hours. If I did the job, I'd just take things easy. At the end of the day, these large companies are making millions in £££ and whilst shoplifting is undesirable, the profits can handle it.

 

Meanwhile, a security guard's wife and kids would not be able to handle the fact that daddy won't be home tonight because he was stabbed to death over £20 of groceries.

[theronstar]

I understand what you are saying but when you apply the reasonable man test the evidence speaks for itself with Caparo.

 

But like you said that will be down to the coroner to decide

 

I really don't follow what you just said LOL.

 

A coroner determines a cause of death. Not whether someone can bring a claim in negligence. Boy did I just chuckle!

[obiter dictum]

The coroner will decide if it was unlawful the homicide or an accident. That will impact any civil and/or criminal action

 

Less of the insults please and keep to the facts

[theronstar]

Sorry. No insult intended.

 

It was because I was talking about a Judge and then you mentioned a coroner and it threw me off.

 

Returning to the topic though, I am curious about the quantum of any claim that may be brought in the future.

 

I am assuming that the shoplifter lived on unemployment benefits. Though I would LOL if any relatives brought the claim on the basis that they were financially dependent on the deceased.

[BazzaS]

 

It was because I was talking about a Judge and then you mentioned a coroner and it threw me off.

 

 

For E&W: a coroner is a member of the judiciary.

Appointed by the local authority (LA), admittedly, but:

a) within the "judicial appointment requirement", and

b) the LA must seek approval of the candidate from both the Chief Coroner and Lord Chancellor.

 

http://www.coronersociety.org.uk/becoming_a_coroner

 

The inquest will specifically avoid allocating blame.

It's purpose is to decide the identity of the deceased and how they came by their death.

[ericsbrother]

coroners are appointed as a judicial post because coroners courts have being going on longer than most other courts. Coroners can be lawyers but often are doctors.. Knew 2 who were pathologists, another who was a surgeon. Doesnt make them judges, that is a differeent appointment process.

[BazzaS]

coroners are appointed as a judicial post because coroners courts have being going on longer than most other courts. Coroners can be lawyers but often are doctors.. Knew 2 who were pathologists, another who was a surgeon. Doesnt make them judges, that is a differeent appointment process.

 

Coroners who became eligible by having been a registered medical practitioner for at least 5 years can remain coroners (by a 'grandfathering' process), but since the Coroner and Justice Act 2009 was implemented (see the coroner's society link I previously posted) this is no longer the case - they must now meet the "judicial appointment requirement".

 

Coroners (including those previously appointed by virtue of being medical practitioners not being legally qualified) can :

1) Order witness summonses to be issued

2) Order "no-bail" bench warrants for the arrest of persons who they believe are deliberately refusing to comply with a witness summons

3) punish (fine and/or imprisonment!) contempt of court (for Coroner's court)

 

By all means refuse a witness summons, or remind the Coroner "you aren't a proper judge"; but, if you do so, "pack a toothbrush" when you are headed to court.

 

How would you address them in court? Like you would a member of the public? Like a magistrate? Or, as you would a District Judge?

 

How much more do you need for them to be considered members of the judiciary?

[ericsbrother]

I never said they werent. Magistrates arent lawyers (except stipendiaries) and 2/3 of people on the bench of an ET are not legally trained but they have the same powers. Even the chair isnt a judge as such but has most of the same powers.

I was explaining a little about history and how not all coroners are lawyers. I never said they didnt have the same powers. In some ways they have more powers than an ordinary judge as they have a public health remit and can order actions upon entities and individuals who would otherwise not be subject of a court order. In the past they could find someone guilty of murder who had not been tried in a criminal court

[maxxer]

To follow up on this:

 

Coronor said accidental death.

 

Cps said no charges to be brought against security guard.