Assaulted at a supermarket by store colleagues

FlaatusGoat

I don't know whether this is the place to ask this but seeing as it's generally a pretty well informed place it's a start.

To cut a long story short, I was accused of shoplifting, grabbed and pulled about. Manhandled in effect and nearly had my phone ripped out of my hand. It was physical, nasty and intimidating, with security escalating the situation - I had to plead with them to calm down. I recorded this all by the way. Any way, CCTV footage was subsequently reviewed and it was indeed found I had not stolen anything at all. No apology, complaint completely fobbed off and blamed on me.

Police said security are effectively allowed to rough handle me if they 'suspect' wrong doing. I'm obviously furious about the situation still.

Thoughts?

Brie

Complain to head office supplying a copy of the recording for their viewing pleasure.  There are ways to deal with shoplifting that don't need to escalate to violence - particularly where the accused is cooperating.

flossy_splodge

Name and shame the company? Always worth doing. Sorry you had such a horrid experience.

Teapot55

flossy_splodge said:

Name and shame the company? Always worth doing. Sorry you had such a horrid experience.

I think you have to be wary of ‘name and shame’ on this forum. I have a feeling there’s forum rules forbidding this and you could get into trouble doing it. 

powerful_Rogue

Teapot55 said:

flossy_splodge said:

Name and shame the company? Always worth doing. Sorry you had such a horrid experience.

I think you have to be wary of ‘name and shame’ on this forum. I have a feeling there’s forum rules forbidding this and you could get into trouble doing it. 

No there isn't, not if it's true.

FlaatusGoat

Name and shame it is. Asda - and yes I did complain. Atrocious, took them three weeks and they drew conclusions without considering anything I had to say. Refused to review my footage that would have directly contradicted what they were 'told'

I can't believe you're allowed to rough someone up, threaten and abuse members of the public based on 'suspicion'

Pollycat

FlaatusGoat said:

I don't know whether this is the place to ask this but seeing as it's generally a pretty well informed place it's a start.

To cut a long story short, I was accused of shoplifting, grabbed and pulled about. Manhandled in effect and nearly had my phone ripped out of my hand. It was physical, nasty and intimidating, with security escalating the situation - I had to plead with them to calm down. I recorded this all by the way. Any way, CCTV footage was subsequently reviewed and it was indeed found I had not stolen anything at all. No apology, complaint completely fobbed off and blamed on me.

Police said security are effectively allowed to rough handle me if they 'suspect' wrong doing. I'm obviously furious about the situation still.

Thoughts?

Is this true?

I can maybe understand if there has been a provable case of shoplifting and the 'suspect' is trying to run off...but can they really 'rough handle' someone if there is only a suspicion? Especially a suspicion that is later shown to be false.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

My understanding is this is covered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A

[F124AArrest 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.

[F2(5)This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.]]

The two parts in bold are noteworthy, low value shoplifting (under £200) is not an indictable offence (instead a summary offence) and the person conducting the arrest always requires reasonable grounds.

Regarding the use of reasonable force I believe this is covered by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, there isn't really a definition of reasonable so it's case by case.

Regarding reasonable grounds, this isn't often going to be questioned if the person they arrest is ultimately guilty, in this situation OP would have to argue the security didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect them of an (indictable) offence.

Rather than chasing this as a criminal matter OP would probably find it easier to seek damages for false imprisonment and Aggravated damages as a result of that false imprisonment. 

OP I'm pretty sure a quick search on Google will pull up some firms that can offer advice on these specific matters.  

Gavin83

Brie said:

particularly where the accused is cooperating.

Ignoring the issue at hand (which I won’t question) but at no point did the OP inform us they cooperated. 

littleboo

Were these people dedicated security personnel, or general shop floor staff?

FlaatusGoat

Gavin83 said:

Brie said:

particularly where the accused is cooperating.

Ignoring the issue at hand (which I won’t question) but at no point did the OP inform us they cooperated. 

I did cooperate (for my own safety under duress and under threat of further physical assault)