Stealing YOUR OWN stuff from shops

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Stewie2011

The fact that a PC is not present is not grounds for arrest its whether Police would have been able to get there in time

How quickly do you think that might have to be if the perpetrator is heading for the door? :rolleyes:

plus act states its the Police that should do the arresting.

No it doesn't. It merely gives both PCs and ordinary people the power to do so.

While there is provision in the act for them not being present its the question mark over what is reasonable time that makes it dodgy for a citizen to do so.

There is no question mark. The words

making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him

make it obvious that if there is no PC present then an arrest is reasonable.

Whether it becomes apparent later that they have been misled could be argued by the police that they should have taken greater caution before proceeding with a citizen's arrest.

The attitude of the police is irrelevant. It is the court that makes that decision. Again, the law is clear that a reasonable suspicion is adequate.

The citizen needs more than grounds for reasonable suspicion they need to be sure an criminal act has been committed.

No, the act is specific. I trust you read it when I posted it earlier.The person arresting needs reasonable suspicion that the person they arrest has committed an indictable offence.

Reply 41

Stewie2011

Original post by Good bloke

How quickly do you think that might have to be if the perpetrator is heading for the door? :rolleyes:

No it doesn't. It merely gives both PCs and ordinary people the power to do so.

There is no question mark. The words

make it obvious that if there is no PC present then an arrest is reasonable.

The attitude of the police is irrelevant. It is the court that makes that decision. Again, the law is clear that a reasonable suspicion is adequate.

No, the act is specific. I trust you read it when I posted it earlier.The person arresting needs reasonable suspicion that the person they arrest has committed an indictable offence.

Not going to argue about this all day, if you spoke to the police or ex-police they would tell the same thing I have. Sounds like you are getting a bit too worked up over this.

Reply 42

Good bloke

Original post by Stewie2011

Not going to argue about this all day, if you spoke to the police or ex-police they would tell the same thing I have. Sounds like you are getting a bit too worked up over this.

A lawyer is a better source of legal advice than a policeman.

Reply 43

pjm600

Original post by Stewie2011

Security have no powers to detain you, whether a crime has been committed or not, only the Police have powers to detain you. Security can ask you to wait (or make it look that you have to stay) but you can simply walk out and there is nothing they can do (except possibly try to block your path without physically touching you. For them to detain you i.e in a locked room, telling you they are detaining you, etc. means they would be committing an offence in itself.

Possibly the police may threaten a charge (looks like they have plenty to choose from these days) or try to give some warning but I doubt anything would stick that they could get a CPS successful prosecution on. Would probably deem it not worth the paperwork hence the warning route or informing you that they are busy dealing with real problems. Chances are staff would face a bit of kickback if they called the police as they would need to ascertain a crime had been committed in the first place, but if you didn't allow them access to the goods to verify then they could state suspicion based on your moves.

On the, 'deception with intent to get caught' possibly this one but would depend on what your statements were if police ever interviewed you.

Store might well ban you, take little notice or just see it as someone messing around. So, yes you could just walk out of there after doing the said action. That's what I reckon anyway, theoretically speaking.

No, that's not true.

Shoplifting is an indictable offence, therefore there is a power of arrest available to anyone under Section 24 of PACE in England and Wales, or detain under Section 3 CLA 1987. The common law power of citizen's arrest exists in Scotland, for a crime that has been witnessed.

Security guards, like anyone else, absolutely are allowed to use reasonable force to detain you. No, they would not be committing an offence by detaining you.

No, there wouldn't be a 'kickback'. I'm not sure about E&W, but in Scotland police would probably detain the person until they can ascertain whether shoplifting has been committed. Ascertaining whether it's taken place would probably involve checking the CCTV or going through the record in the till, so could take some time, during which you'd be pretty bored in a cell.

Reply 44

nulli tertius

Original post by Stewie2011

It is this part that is the dodgy part where the Police essentially take back the citizen's arrest powers in part 1 & 2. Namely, the constable could argue that it was practical for him/her to make the arrest, that hey could have got there before person 'made off'. There's no definition in the act that states what is regarded as a Police officer being able to make the arrest, i.e within 5 min of incident, 300 metres, nearby police station, phone call, police car patrol, etc. They could easily argue that person should not have been citizen arrested as it could have been dangerous to do so and could have been picked up later. So, this section is very much open to interpretation making it too dogy to do a citizen's arrest. In the scenario here, someone making a citizen's arrest would likely face charges themselves since it would be difficult to prove a crime had been committed that would warrant a citizen's arrest.

You have to look at the reason for the change.

Most non-attention seeking (let's arrest the PM of a government we don't like very much (including our own) for treason/war crimes etc) citizens' arrests are obvious and straightforward. They are either made by private law enforcement officials such as store detectives/doormen etc or they are a reaction to street crime (the public chase down a bag snatcher or jewellery shop robber etc).

However the major change from 1984 is that we now have a lot of state employed "plastic policemen". The purpose of the change is not to deprive "ordinary" citizens of their power to act but to ensure that the power to act of state employees such as Police Community Support Officers is very narrowly confined. Before the 2005 changes the only difference between a policeman's and a member of the public's power of arrest was the protection given to a policeman who reasonably suspected an offence had been committed in circumstances where it hadn't been. A Chief Constable willing to bear the cost of indemnifying against such mistakes could effectively have withdrawn all sworn constables from front-line policing in favour of, cheaper, PCSOs. The 2005 changes confine PCSOs to an ancillary role.

Reply 45

nulli tertius

Original post by Good bloke

I would argue that deliberately misleading the shop into thinking they had been robbed is knowingly making to any person a false report.

Original post by Observatory

I don't think his prank would constitute a report.

That would not amount to a report.

I do wonder if there was a fear of repetition whether the police could apply for an ASBO? One would have to show the prankster acted "a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons" and there would need to be a fear of repetition so that the ASBO was "necessary" to prevent similar behaviour. The shopkeeper's alarm that his stock was being stolen might well be enough to secure an ASBO. I think if I was the force solicitor and the same man had done this a couple of times, I would be seriously looking at an ASBO.

Other jurisdictions have an offence of effecting a public mischief but in R v Newland [1954] this was held not to exist in England,.

Reply 46

nulli tertius

Original post by pjm600

What is this highlighted power?

Section 24/24A provides no right for a citizen to arrest where a crime is not/has not been committed. Whereas a policeman only needs reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has committed what he reasonably suspects to be a crime, the citizen has to have reasonable suspicion that the arrestee has committed a crime that has actually occurred/is occurring.

The store detective who arrests our prankster will have committed the wrong of false imprisonment.

Reply 47

pjm600

Original post by nulli tertius

Sorry, that's the Criminal Law act 1967, not 87:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

24A does, as the security guard, store worker, or member of the public would have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed theft by shoplifting due to their actions of hiding the bottle and running out the shop. The arrest would be necessary to prevent the accused from making off before a constable could assume responsibility for him, and to prevent loss of property.

24A:

(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—

(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—

(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

The arrest would be lawful.

Reply 48

nulli tertius

Original post by pjm600

Sorry you are right on the second point. I had overlooked that the distinction is drawn where the offence is in the course of commission.

The 67 Act power is only a free-standing power power of detention to prevent crime. Where the crime has been completed eg the store detective detaining outside the store, that is an exercise of the power of arrest. There is no detention in order to prevent crime. The crime has already taken place.