Girlfriend held for suspected robbery

[davethe11]

From the sounds of it the only thing wrong here is that your gf appeared so guilty that the security guard didn't see the point of checking all sales beyond the reasonable time period. I'm sure every shop lifter he catches claims they paid for it before etc so he's heard it all before.

She was held until the proper authorities arrived. Once they did they insured a proper investigation was carried out and her story properly checked. The officer found evidence backing up her story so released her! From what you've said this is exactly what happened and exactly what should have happened!!!

respectfully disagree, the guard had a job to do no doubt, but sounds like he would be more suited as a doorman, not a shop security guard

 

[yak.h'cir]

so its ok for a security guard to do this with no proof ?

From what i've heard it's a relatively common scam to try and return stolen goods to a store for refund/vouchers as these are more valuable to the thief. To a security guard the girl in question appeared to be doing exactly this so he was just doing his job in detaining her and waiting for police.

if i was to go to tescos tommorow can i expect to be manhandled and held against my will if i am carrying a loaf of bread bought earlier that day and a security guard has a hunch that i stole? without any proof or witnessing me stealing or acting suspiciously?

To make it a better example at least use something of a similar value, say a DVD! I.e. You buy a DVD but a month or so later it stops working so you take it back to return it, unbeknown to you a load of the same DVDs were stolen recently so when you try and return your copy the security guards are suspicious and start making accusations. From your point of view this would feel very out of order but from theirs they've every right to be suspicious.

 

[Legoman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6323391.stm

has all the answers

No it doesn't.

Could you quote which specific piece of that article says that a citizen's arrest doesn't exist any more as you claimed?

Furthermore, where does it say that store security guards and PCSOs rely on anything more than a so-called "citizen's arrest" and what additional legal status they have in this regard over a member of the general public?



I found the following of interest:

The case highlights the legal complexity and possible dangers of carrying out a citizen's arrest. The current powers of citizens' arrest, that apply to "any person", are broadly covered by three parts of the law.

• Arrest for an "indictable offence" under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act1984.
• Arrest of persons committing, or about to commit a Breach of the Peace under common law.
• Use of reasonable force to prevent crime or arrest offenders or persons unlawfully at large under the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and store detectives rely on these powers for aspects of their jobs.

...people needed to remember if the arrest was unlawful or it was proved later the suspect had not committed the crime, or the force used to detain them was too great "you could be the one facing charges later on".

 

[Legoman]

To make it a better example at least use something of a similar value, say a DVD! I.e. You buy a DVD but a month or so later it stops working so you take it back to return it, unbeknown to you a load of the same DVDs were stolen recently so when you try and return your copy the security guards are suspicious and start making accusations. From your point of view this would feel very out of order but from theirs they've every right to be suspicious.

...but no right to act outside the law and detain that person.

 

[Totality]

...but no right to act outside the law and detain that person.

Well if said "detained" person wasnt such a wet blanket and stood their ground it would have been over a lot sooner! If she honestly felt she was being kidnapped then she should have made a hell of a lot more fuss and done something about it. The guys GF has a lot to do with this by being a complete walkover. Any of the people I know would have had the whole thing resolved in minutes. Common sense really.

 

[yak.h'cir]

...but no right to act outside the law and detain that person.

Well we don't really know if he physically forced her to stay or whether he just said to her she had to stay and wait for the police.

I'm surprised that there is no right to detain someone against there will when waiting for police anyway. I know if I was in a position to restrain someone who committed a crime against me I wouldn't hesitate to do so.

 

[JBuk]

From what i've heard it's a relatively common scam to try and return stolen goods to a store for refund/vouchers as these are more valuable to the thief. To a security guard the girl in question appeared to be doing exactly this so he was just doing his job in detaining her and waiting for police.

he has no right to detain people he "suspects" of commiting a crime

he has to abide by the rules like everyone else, he doesnt have the authority to do what he did no matter how good his intentions were

To make it a better example at least use something of a similar value, say a DVD! I.e. You buy a DVD but a month or so later it stops working so you take it back to return it, unbeknown to you a load of the same DVDs were stolen recently so when you try and return your copy the security guards are suspicious and start making accusations. From your point of view this would feel very out of order but from theirs they've every right to be suspicious.

the value doesnt matter

if the guard suspected a crime he should have reported it to the police and let them follow it up

he still doesnt have a right to detain someone without witnessing a crime or proof

 

[yak.h'cir]

IMO the value does make a difference, especially in the way staff will treat you. If you wanted to return a loaf of bread because it was damaged then there's probably a fair chance of them swapping it over without question/fuss. If however you start walking around the store with a widescreen telly/try and return it without receipt I think it's fair to say that you'll have to answer a few more questions.

he still doesnt have a right to detain someone without witnessing a crime or proof

So he does have the right to detain if he has proof then?

I guess in his eyes he had all the proof needed, it was only when the 'professional' turned up that this was tested.

 

[Legoman]

IMO the value does make a difference, especially in the way staff will treat you. If you wanted to return a loaf of bread because it was damaged then there's probably a fair chance of them swapping it over without question/fuss. If however you start walking around the store with a widescreen telly/try and return it without receipt I think it's fair to say that you'll have to answer a few more questions.

I agree, eyebrows would be raised; but it doesn't change the right (or lack of) in law of a store security guard to detain that person.

EDIT: Many people return items to a store and ask for a refund without a receipt. Some stores have a policy to refund even without a receipt. Those people are usually not detained by the store security guard to prove the original purchase

So he does have the right to detain if he has proof then?

If he witnessed a person putting an item in a bag and attempting to walk out of the shop with it without paying I would expect a court to find he acted lawfully if he detained that person until the police arrived so long as he used "reasonable" force.

According to the OP's account his GF returned to the shop with an item in order to try and obtain a refund. I would expect a court to find him to have acted unlawfully by detaining her in those circumstances.

 

[bubblebobble]

That is absoulty disgraceful, she should demand a full apology from the officer concerned. However the difficulty arises when trying to contact the police directly, you have to go through so many hoops in order to get anywhere close.
Have you though about the local paper, it would make interesting reading.