*Vent* RSPCA!

PILES

LadyL2013 wrote: »

But surely they would only want to be inspecting your animals if they had had a tip off? In which case, how exactly do you expect animal cruelty to be investigated if they didn't check claims out? Sure you could get the police out every time but how much police time would that waste? The current system seems to be the best that we have at the moment.

I would have no qualms letting inspectors in if someone accused me of mistreating my pets as it couldn't be further from the truth, regardless of if they had official powers or not.

Organisations like the police and the army have "inspectors". This is a charity staffed by civilians.

powerful_Rogue

PILES wrote: »

Organisations like the police and the army have "inspectors". This is a charity staffed by civilians.

The police are civilians as well.

PILES

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The police are civilians as well.

Yes you can apply that to all organisations. However Police and army have additional powers given to them by reason of their profession. As far as I know the RSPCA "inspectors" dont.

powerful_Rogue

PILES wrote: »

Yes you can apply that to all organisations. However Police and army have additional powers given to them by reason of their profession. As far as I know the RSPCA "inspectors" dont.

I don't understand your logic that only the police/army or organisations that have "powers" can use the term inspector.

The definition of the term inspector is:

One who is appointed or employed to inspect something.

What about the RNLI, St John Ambulance etc, they are charities without "powers" but use the term inspector.

adouglasmhor

You get ticket inspectors on some public transport as well, some even have statutory powers.

BBQ141

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

No, did you not read my quote of 24 pace above?

Ive highlighted the relevant sections. As you can see, its not only a Constable that can arrest on suspicion.

I didn't need to read your quote of PACE, I am quite familiar with the legislation. However, I still believe that "anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence." would not apply in this case, I think you are misinterpreting the part of PACE that talks about reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence. The key part is that at the point of arrest, in general the security guard cannot say for sure an offence has been committed as they have not witnessed anything other than the alarm sounding. Police Officers can arrest where they reasonably suspect an offence has been committed whereas anyone else can only arrest on suspicion, if the actual offence that is suspected is in progress. The best example I can think of is R vs Self.

powerful_Rogue

BBQ141 wrote: »

I didn't need to read your quote of PACE, I am quite familiar with the legislation. However, I still believe that "anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence." would not apply in this case, I think you are misinterpreting the part of PACE that talks about reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence. The key part is that at the point of arrest, in general the security guard cannot say for sure an offence has been committed as they have not witnessed anything other than the alarm sounding. Police Officers can arrest where they reasonably suspect an offence has been committed whereas anyone else can only arrest on suspicion, if the actual offence that is suspected is in progress. The best example I can think of is R vs Self.

Thats all well and good, but id stick to what is written.

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

Suspicion will be based upon the alarm sounding and the person refusing to show any receipt.

BBQ141

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Thats all well and good, but id stick to what is written.



Suspicion will be based upon the alarm sounding and the person refusing to show any receipt.

But what is suspected What offence? The only person who could arrest in these circumstances is a police constable, and even then they could search the person first.

powerful_Rogue

BBQ141 wrote: »

But what is suspected What offence? The only person who could arrest in these circumstances is a police constable, and even then they could search the person first.

The person is suspected of theft which is an indictable offence.
Section 24a PACE deals with any person powers.

This is the "bread and butter" of store detectives/store security.

BBQ141

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The person is suspected of theft which is an indictable offence.
Section 24a PACE deals with any person powers.

This is the "bread and butter" of store detectives/store security.

It is indeed the "bread and butter" of store security, none of whom I've ever seen arresting someone on suspicion.

In order for the store detective to arrest someone for theft they would need to see the person select the item, conceal it and then attempt to leave the store without paying. Then they could use any person powers and execute an arrest.

However, having the alarm go off and then the person who is believed to have activated it refuse to show a receipt is not grounds for an arrest. There is no law which requires someone to show proof of purchase to a store detective.