Shoplifting minors

ThumbRemote

It's pretty clear that some posters here have no experience or knowledge with dealing with minors. 

Leaving aside the autism issue, it appears that the store security have taken two children to a private place without accompaniment, then proceeded to touch them. This raises so many safeguarding alarm bells - not just for the children, but for the security guards own protection from allegations. A street-smart child could very easily claim sexual assault in retaliation for being caught. 

In the first instance I would contact the store and put in a subject access request for the CCTV covering your children in the store, from the time the security guard first made contact with them to the time they left the store. Make it completely dispassionate, do not make any allegations, simply request the footage. Then you can get a better feel for what has gone on. 

Monsternextdoor

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Monsternextdoor said:

"The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984:

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

(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.”


Nothing there about searching anyone and that is the law pertaining to a citizen's arrest. 

Out of interest a look on google suggests that low value shoplifting is summary only offence rather than an indictable offence so can you still detain someone who isn't committing an indictable offence?

Yes if you believe them to have committed an offence and they refuse to show you what is in their bag.

Say for instance a call comes over 

male, 35-40, 5'10, Bald and wearing a black hoodie with jeans and black trainers comes over on the chain. 

You look around and see someone who fits the description, they walk out with a bag at the same time as someone who has bought something and the alarm goes off. 

Security will zone in on the person described and ask them to open their bag, now reasonable people will but some won't. 
Security then can detain him and call the police to perform the search and he has nothing on him, it was a tag left on the other person's top that they had purchased.

Now security have detained the wrong person and he has committed no offence, Happens more that people realise.

brianposter

I would be far more worried about the traumatic effect on the children of being caught shoplifting than bothering about the actions of the shop. It is far more important that you get it across to them that a lot of children shoplift, and that while it should not happen again, it is now in the past.

Treat it as something from which your children should learn a lesson (or lessons), and assume that they have learnt rather than restrict them..

sheramber

ThumbRemote said:

It's pretty clear that some posters here have no experience or knowledge with dealing with minors. 

Leaving aside the autism issue, it appears that the store security have taken two children to a private place without accompaniment, then proceeded to touch them. This raises so many safeguarding alarm bells - not just for the children, but for the security guards own protection from allegations. A street-smart child could very easily claim sexual assault in retaliation for being caught. 

In the first instance I would contact the store and put in a subject access request for the CCTV covering your children in the store, from the time the security guard first made contact with them to the time they left the store. Make it completely dispassionate, do not make any allegations, simply request the footage. Then you can get a better feel for what has gone on. 

You will only get CCTV footage if there are no other people on the film.

user1977

sheramber said:

ThumbRemote said:

It's pretty clear that some posters here have no experience or knowledge with dealing with minors. 

Leaving aside the autism issue, it appears that the store security have taken two children to a private place without accompaniment, then proceeded to touch them. This raises so many safeguarding alarm bells - not just for the children, but for the security guards own protection from allegations. A street-smart child could very easily claim sexual assault in retaliation for being caught. 

In the first instance I would contact the store and put in a subject access request for the CCTV covering your children in the store, from the time the security guard first made contact with them to the time they left the store. Make it completely dispassionate, do not make any allegations, simply request the footage. Then you can get a better feel for what has gone on. 

You will only get CCTV footage if there are no other people on the film.

Redacting the other people is their problem, not an excuse for not releasing the footage (though if they're going to get fussy about it, bear in mind it's the children who are the data subjects, not the parents).

Undervalued

sheramber said:

ThumbRemote said:

It's pretty clear that some posters here have no experience or knowledge with dealing with minors. 

Leaving aside the autism issue, it appears that the store security have taken two children to a private place without accompaniment, then proceeded to touch them. This raises so many safeguarding alarm bells - not just for the children, but for the security guards own protection from allegations. A street-smart child could very easily claim sexual assault in retaliation for being caught. 

In the first instance I would contact the store and put in a subject access request for the CCTV covering your children in the store, from the time the security guard first made contact with them to the time they left the store. Make it completely dispassionate, do not make any allegations, simply request the footage. Then you can get a better feel for what has gone on. 

You will only get CCTV footage if there are no other people on the film.

No. They are still obliged to disclose it but can redact / pixelate etc the faces of other customers.

Undervalued

brianposter said:

I would be far more worried about the traumatic effect on the children of being caught shoplifting than bothering about the actions of the shop. It is far more important that you get it across to them that a lot of children shoplift, and that while it should not happen again, it is now in the past.

Treat it as something from which your children should learn a lesson (or lessons), and assume that they have learnt rather than restrict them..

No, I think both are equally important.

Based on what has been described here the shop are well out of order with some of their actions. As has been mentioned by another poster, the shop have left themselves wide open to serious malicious accusations. They may also have committed a criminal offence by their actions, even as have been described here.

IvanOpinion

As a kid I would have been far more scared what my parents were going to say and do than I would have been of the shop assistant or police (those were the days when a policeman gave you a cuff around the back of the head for doing something wrong). 

Personally I think the OP handled it correctly and took the children back down to the shop to apologise and have done their best to explain right from wrong.  Beyond that there is nothing more than hearsay and speculation, based on partial information, I would let that be the end of it.

Ditzy_Mitzy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Monsternextdoor said:

"The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984:

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

(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.”


Nothing there about searching anyone and that is the law pertaining to a citizen's arrest. 

Out of interest a look on google suggests that low value shoplifting is summary only offence rather than an indictable offence so can you still detain someone who isn't committing an indictable offence?

Yes.  Theft is an either way offence, which means that treatment as summary only or indictable is a matter for CPS or the courts to decide.  Prior to that the done thing is to treat the offence as indictable, which gives the police officer at the scene of any theft the PACE powers detailed in the extract.  

Laz123

bris said:

Bottom line they were a couple of thieves who got caught, why look for excuses and try to defend them?

Cant believe some of the replies on here, shop has the right to detain them until the police arrive, everything else is just speculation.

The security who detained them don't know what medical conditions they have, nor do they need to.

At least no one can accuse you of being a humanitarian.