By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
false imprisonment.

They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
arrest me.

My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence was
in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not lawful.

However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
example?

I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
cases to which I can refer.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:20167f9d-f8cd-42f8-a75c-5611492e72fc@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
> detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
> of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
> pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
> false imprisonment.
>
> They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
> state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
> suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
> arrest me.
>
> My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
> suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
> grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
> cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence was
> in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not lawful.
>
> However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
> reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
> scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
> suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
> example?
>
> I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
> cases to which I can refer.
>

The mere fact that a security alarm is going off, does not provide 
reasonable grounds for arresting *everyone* in the vicinity. That ought to 
go without saying.

Conlan v Chief Constable of Northumbria
C was arrested by two police officers upon suspicion of burglary as he stood 
waiting at a taxi rank. C subsequently commenced proceedings against CCN 
alleging false imprisonment and assault. CCN applied to strike out the claim 
under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 3 r.3.4(2)(a) and Part 24 r.24.2. 
The judge at first instance granted the application, stating that the claim 
for false imprisonment was bound to fail. C appealed.
Held, allowing the appeal, that the statements which had been available to 
the judge clearly contained material sufficient to establish a claim for 
false imprisonment, based on two separate and distinct issues. Firstly, the 
actual suspicion of the officers and secondly the existence of reasonable 
grounds giving rise to that suspicion. C's account of the events leading up 
to his arrest, if proved to be true, would indicate that the two officers in 
question had possessed no reasonable grounds for suspecting that C had 
committed an arrestable offence since C had provided an explanation for his 
presence at the scene which had been confirmed prior to the arrest by an 
independent third party. The judge had erred in presuming that the police 
officer's version of events was true and effectively making a finding of 
fact from consideration of the statements alone that the officers had 
possessed reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Court: (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date: March 2, 2000

In news:6htb10FnrlbtU1@mid.individual.net,
The Todal opined:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
> news:20167f9d-f8cd-42f8-a75c-5611492e72fc@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
>> detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm.
>> Because of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently,
>> I am pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault,
>> battery, and false imprisonment.
>>
>> They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
>> state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
>> suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
>> arrest me.
>>
>> My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
>> suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
>> grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
>> cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence
>> was in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not
>> lawful.
>>
>> However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
>> reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
>> scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
>> suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
>> example?
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
>> cases to which I can refer.
>>
>
> The mere fact that a security alarm is going off, does not provide
> reasonable grounds for arresting *everyone* in the vicinity. That
> ought to go without saying.
>
> Conlan v Chief Constable of Northumbria
> C was arrested by two police officers upon suspicion of burglary as
> he stood waiting at a taxi rank. C subsequently commenced proceedings
> against CCN alleging false imprisonment and assault. CCN applied to
> strike out the claim under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 3
> r.3.4(2)(a) and Part 24 r.24.2. The judge at first instance granted
> the application, stating that the claim for false imprisonment was
> bound to fail. C appealed.
> Held, allowing the appeal, that the statements which had been
> available to the judge clearly contained material sufficient to
> establish a claim for false imprisonment, based on two separate and
> distinct issues. Firstly, the actual suspicion of the officers and
> secondly the existence of reasonable grounds giving rise to that
> suspicion. C's account of the events leading up to his arrest, if
> proved to be true, would indicate that the two officers in question
> had possessed no reasonable grounds for suspecting that C had
> committed an arrestable offence since C had provided an explanation
> for his presence at the scene which had been confirmed prior to the
> arrest by an independent third party. The judge had erred in
> presuming that the police officer's version of events was true and
> effectively making a finding of fact from consideration of the
> statements alone that the officers had possessed reasonable grounds
> for suspicion.
> Court: (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
> Judgment date: March 2, 2000

It may have changed, but I remember being taught that a constable could 
arrest on reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and on 
reasonable suspicion that the suspect had committed it, whereas a private 
citizen (or supermarket employee) could only arrest if an offence had in 
fact been committed and on reasonable suspicion that the suspect had 
committed it. So the citizen risked being sued if no offence had in fact 
been committed, even with a reasonable suspicion.

Chris R

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:00:11 +0100, "Chris R" 
wrote:

<snip>

>
>It may have changed, but I remember being taught that a constable could 
>arrest on reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and on 
>reasonable suspicion that the suspect had committed it, whereas a private 
>citizen (or supermarket employee) could only arrest if an offence had in 
>fact been committed and on reasonable suspicion that the suspect had 
>committed it. 

It has changed.

Serious Organised Crime And Police Act 2005, section 110 (which came
into force in January 2007).
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_10#pt3-pb1>

This replaces sections 24 & 24A of PACE, and 24A(1)(b) now allows an
ordinary citizen to arrest "anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for
suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.".
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Taxation is little more than legalized extortion.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
>detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
>of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
>pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
>false imprisonment.
>
>They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
>state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
>suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
>arrest me.
>
>My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
>suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
>grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
>cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence was
>in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not lawful.

That case is no longer valid precedent, because the law regarding
"citizens arrest" change with the Serious Organised Crime And Police
Act 2005 (the relevant parts of which came into force in January
2007).



>
>However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
>reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
>scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
>suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
>example?

It is very much up to the court to decide.

AFAIK, there are no decided cases on record since the change in the
law which hinged on that point.

My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.


>
>I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
>cases to which I can refer.

I'm not sure there are any which take account of the law as it now
stands, and which will really be relevant. That is quite a recent
change in the law, and cases usually only set precedent if the initial
decision is appealed.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I know Karate, Kung Fu, and 47 other dangerous words
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:40:07 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>
>>By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
>>detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
>>of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
>>pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
>>false imprisonment.
>>
>>They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
>>state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
>>suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
>>arrest me.
>>
>>My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
>>suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
>>grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
>>cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence was
>>in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not lawful.
>
>That case is no longer valid precedent, because the law regarding
>"citizens arrest" change with the Serious Organised Crime And Police
>Act 2005 (the relevant parts of which came into force in January
>2007).
>
>
>
>>
>>However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
>>reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
>>scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
>>suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
>>example?
>
>It is very much up to the court to decide.
>
>AFAIK, there are no decided cases on record since the change in the
>law which hinged on that point.
>
>My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
>combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
>to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
>sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.


And the number of times the alarm goes off without any evidence of
wrong doing would also be very relevant.

It  would be quite interesting to know what percentage of alarms are
actually false alarms.  I regularly see/hear the alarm going off
(Asda/Tesco/Sainsbury's) and they have always been false - but
embarrassing alarms - I have never seem anyone apprehended.

I would definitely not show the contents of my bags if an alarm went
off as I passed through the detector.

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:
> 
> > By way of some background to my question, in December last year I
> > was detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm.
> > Because of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently,
> > I am pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault,
> > battery, and false imprisonment.
> > 
> > They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
> > state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
> > suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
> > arrest me.
> > 
> > My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
> > suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
> > grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
> > cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence
> > was in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not
> > lawful.
> 
> That case is no longer valid precedent, because the law regarding
> "citizens arrest" change with the Serious Organised Crime And Police
> Act 2005 (the relevant parts of which came into force in January
> 2007).
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
> > reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
> > scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
> > suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers,
> > for example?
> 
> It is very much up to the court to decide.
> 
> AFAIK, there are no decided cases on record since the change in the
> law which hinged on that point.
> 
> My personal opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
> to have their bags checked voluntarily would probably be seen as
> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.
> 
> 

They still need to justify thier actions , its not a legal requirement
to allow store security  to search you or your property without your
consent. Its unlikely a court would side with a security gaurd unless
he/she could back up thier beliefs , refusing to comply with thier
demands to open your bag just wouldnt cut it .




> > 
> > I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
> > cases to which I can refer.
> 
> I'm not sure there are any which take account of the law as it now
> stands, and which will really be relevant. That is quite a recent
> change in the law, and cases usually only set precedent if the initial
> decision is appealed.



--

Alex Heney wrote:

> My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
> to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.


You might well be right, in these benighted times.   We all know that those 
alarms are uselessly unreliable, but try convincing a judge of that.

However, what would be the situation if I was innocent of theft and declined 
to be searched or arrested by the shop staff, and used whatever force was 
necessary to continue on my business?    AIUI, this does not constitute an 
offence unless the arrest is being made by a uniformed/warranted Police 
Officer...?

On Aug 30, 11:40 pm, Alex Heney  wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> >By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
> >detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
> >of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
> >pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
> >false imprisonment.
>
> >They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
> >state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
> >suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
> >arrest me.
>
> >My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
> >suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
> >grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
> >cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence was
> >in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not lawful.
>
> That case is no longer valid precedent, because the law regarding
> "citizens arrest" change with the Serious Organised Crime And Police
> Act 2005 (the relevant parts of which came into force in January
> 2007).
>
>
>
> >However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
> >reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
> >scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
> >suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
> >example?
>
> It is very much up to the court to decide.
>
> AFAIK, there are no decided cases on record since the change in the
> law which hinged on that point.
>
> My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
> to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.
>
>
>
> >I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
> >cases to which I can refer.
>
> I'm not sure there are any which take account of the law as it now
> stands, and which will really be relevant. That is quite a recent
> change in the law, and cases usually only set precedent if the initial
> decision is appealed.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> I know Karate, Kung Fu, and 47 other dangerous words
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have a habit Alex of either stating the obvious, or stating the
"man on the street" view which is generally unenlightened.

Of course it is "up to the court to decide" what are reasonable
grounds. That is why I wish to know what the courts have decided on
previous occasions - after all, judges are not known to decide a case
on a mere coin toss; instead they use logic, authorities, and
statutes.

With regard to your "personal opinion" offered, I can identify two
serious flaws.
Firstly, a refusal to cooperate (and hence an assertion of one's civil
rights) can never be interpreted as suspicious behaviour and therefore
grounds for arrest - which leaves only the alarm as grounds for
suspicion...

Secondly, I do not agree that the alarm going off is grounds for
suspicion. The alarm can sound for a variety of reasons, none of which
would require me to act in any way irregularly.

For example, I believe the technology operates on simple RF resonance,
so you have the potential for external RF sources to cause activation
- anecdotal evidence suggests pacemakers, key fobs, etc can all cause
such false alarms. It may be an extraordinary malfunction of the
alarm, or improper maintenance - perhaps it was poorly tuned/overly
sensitive to background RF. Then there is till operator error -
failure to remove the tag from the garment. Or there is failure on the
part of the person tagging the garments in the first place - perhaps
they placed two tags on the same garment, and the till operator
assumed there was only one and failed to remove the second. Or perhaps
the device at the till malfunctioned, and did not deactivate the tag
(I refer to the kind of tag that is contained in/part of the item).
Then there are self-service checkouts where tags are supposed to be
deactivated automatically - this technology can fail, as in my
particular case. On the other hand I may have walked in with a tagged
garment (because of some other store's previous mistake), or someone
may have placed a loose tag on me, as a joke perhaps, or as a
distraction while a real thief made good their escape. Indeed I may
even have walked in the store with a tag, or some other device, with
the intention of setting off the alarm (which I understand is not a
crime). Or perhaps some other person nearby set off the alarm, for
whatever reason, intentional or not. Could the security guard even
tell who set the alarm off, when multiple people are passing through
the detectors at once in a busy Asda store?

I know I've laboured the point here Alex, but surely you'll agree, if
someone is directly observed to conceal an item and attempt to leave
without paying, there will usually be reasonable grounds for suspicion
- there will be few innocent explanations for such behaviour, and even
non-criminal explanations will involve some genuine error by the
shopper themselves i.e. "I intended to pay but forgot it was in my
pocket" (see R v Self [1992] for an interesting scenario).

On the other hand, the reasons for the alarm to sound are manifold
(without going back and counting, I have probably listed more than a
dozen above), and only a minority of those reasons are related to any
irregularity in the behaviour of the suspect shopper. The rest of the
alarms are caused exclusively by the behaviour of the store, it's
employees, or the malfunction of the technology.

Under such circumstances, it cannot be the case that a reasonable
person, without passion, prejudice, or pathological suspicion, can
reasonably suspect that the sounding of the alarm alone is reasonable
grounds to suspect that a person has comitted an offence (and
therefore grounds for arrest).

With regard to SOCPA 2005, it did not change the provisions of PACE
1984 in any way that is relevant to my question.

Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
indeed anyone else's thoughts.

On Aug 31, 1:15 am, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> You might well be right, in these benighted times.   We all know that those
> alarms are uselessly unreliable, but try convincing a judge of that.
>
> However, what would be the situation if I was innocent of theft and declined
> to be searched or arrested by the shop staff, and used whatever force was
> necessary to continue on my business?    AIUI, this does not constitute an
> offence unless the arrest is being made by a uniformed/warranted Police
> Officer...?

Well, that is the scenario in R v Self [1992] - which is a very
interesting case. Given his behaviour, it strains credulity that
Graham Self was acquitted of theft. Had he been any other person but a
"detective constable under a great deal of stress", he would surely
have been convicted.

But the law is very clear, if no offence is committed, an 'any person
arrest' is not lawful, and the suspect may use reasonable force to
resist such an arrest.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste  wrote:

> Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
> indeed anyone else's thoughts.

My thought is that someone who replies to a defence of reasonableness with
an accusation that the security guard suffers from a pathological condition
may make a poor witness.

Tony

Ste  posted
>
>But the law is very clear, if no offence is committed, an 'any person
>arrest' is not lawful, and the suspect may use reasonable force to
>resist such an arrest.

Is it so clear?

What if the arrester *is* an authorised person, but the grounds for 
lawful arrest are not present?

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>Of course it is "up to the court to decide" what are reasonable
>grounds. That is why I wish to know what the courts have decided on
>previous occasions - after all, judges are not known to decide a case
>on a mere coin toss; instead they use logic, authorities, and
>statutes.

As others have said, the law has changed since previous precedent was
set and there is currently no precedent. So no-one can tell you what
the courts have decided on previous occasions, as there are not yet
any precedent-setting ocasions to be reported. If you want to be the
person involved in the case which sets precedent, that's up to you. 

>With regard to your "personal opinion" offered, I can identify two
>serious flaws.
>Firstly, a refusal to cooperate (and hence an assertion of one's civil
>rights) can never be interpreted as suspicious behaviour and therefore
>grounds for arrest - which leaves only the alarm as grounds for
>suspicion...

A refusal to cooperate is not, alone, enough, I agree. But you seem to
be making the mistake of assuming that each item of justification
needs to be taken alone.

>Secondly, I do not agree that the alarm going off is grounds for
>suspicion. The alarm can sound for a variety of reasons, none of which
>would require me to act in any way irregularly.

Again, you are correct as far as the alarm alone is concerned. But
combined with a refusal to cooperate, then there may well be
sufficient grounds. 

>For example, I believe the technology operates on simple RF resonance,
>so you have the potential for external RF sources to cause activation
>- anecdotal evidence suggests pacemakers, key fobs, etc can all cause
>such false alarms. It may be an extraordinary malfunction of the
>alarm, or improper maintenance - perhaps it was poorly tuned/overly
>sensitive to background RF. Then there is till operator error -
>failure to remove the tag from the garment. Or there is failure on the
>part of the person tagging the garments in the first place - perhaps
>they placed two tags on the same garment, and the till operator
>assumed there was only one and failed to remove the second. Or perhaps
>the device at the till malfunctioned, and did not deactivate the tag
>(I refer to the kind of tag that is contained in/part of the item).
>Then there are self-service checkouts where tags are supposed to be
>deactivated automatically - this technology can fail, as in my
>particular case. On the other hand I may have walked in with a tagged
>garment (because of some other store's previous mistake), or someone
>may have placed a loose tag on me, as a joke perhaps, or as a
>distraction while a real thief made good their escape. Indeed I may
>even have walked in the store with a tag, or some other device, with
>the intention of setting off the alarm (which I understand is not a
>crime). Or perhaps some other person nearby set off the alarm, for
>whatever reason, intentional or not. Could the security guard even
>tell who set the alarm off, when multiple people are passing through
>the detectors at once in a busy Asda store?

There are, indeed, plenty of reasons why the alarm could have gone
off. But, when it goes off, suspicion is most likely to fall on a
person who refuses to cooperate in investigating the alarm.

>I know I've laboured the point here Alex, but surely you'll agree, if
>someone is directly observed to conceal an item and attempt to leave
>without paying, there will usually be reasonable grounds for suspicion
>- there will be few innocent explanations for such behaviour, and even
>non-criminal explanations will involve some genuine error by the
>shopper themselves i.e. "I intended to pay but forgot it was in my
>pocket" (see R v Self [1992] for an interesting scenario).
>
>On the other hand, the reasons for the alarm to sound are manifold
>(without going back and counting, I have probably listed more than a
>dozen above), and only a minority of those reasons are related to any
>irregularity in the behaviour of the suspect shopper. The rest of the
>alarms are caused exclusively by the behaviour of the store, it's
>employees, or the malfunction of the technology.

The majority of alarms are caused by a tagged item being taken past
the detectors. In many (possibly most) of those cases, this is due to
the checkout operator failing to remove the tag correctly. But, if
that is the case, then it's in the interests of the customer to return
to the store and get the tag dealt with. After all, if the tag is
later discovered but the receipt for payment has since been lost, the
customer has no way of proving that they bought the item legitimately
and tehrefore suspicion will inevitably rest on them. Far better to go
back in and get the tag fixed while they still have the proof that the
item was paid for.

>Under such circumstances, it cannot be the case that a reasonable
>person, without passion, prejudice, or pathological suspicion, can
>reasonably suspect that the sounding of the alarm alone is reasonable
>grounds to suspect that a person has comitted an offence (and
>therefore grounds for arrest).

The sounding of the alarm is sufficient reason for the guard to do
what he is trained to do when the alarm sounds. That is, check those
leaving the store in order to either eliminate them from suspicion or
restrain them for further investigation by the police.

Also, as has been stated in another reply to your post, accusations of
pathological suspicion directed against the guard are hardly likely to
help your case. If you feel the need to cast aspersions against the
mental health of the employee, then you will need to obtain strong
evidence to show a prior pattern of pathological behaviour if this is
to have any chance of standing up in court. If this is your first
encounter with this particular guard, and you have no collaborating
evidence from other people who have encountered him in the past, then
this is a total non-starter.

>Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
>indeed anyone else's thoughts.

My thoughts are that you have virtually no chance of winning a court
case for wrongful arrest, let alone battery. However, if you feel you
were treated with unreasonable harshness during the time you were
detained, then a stiff letter to Asda HQ is likely to produce an
apology and possibly an offer of some token compensation. 

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:a3585d42-41ee-4222-bbc3-8250a44a1eba@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 30, 11:40 pm, Alex Heney  wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:
> >By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
> >detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
> >of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
> >pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
> >false imprisonment.
>
I was stopped by the security guard outside Tesco 3 or 4 days ago. The
difference is that he was absolutely charming about it. As I had just bought
some malt (whisky, not vinegar, I hope), he pointed out that I would have
great difficulty removing the security tag at home. So, the up-shot was a
win-win situation for both of us. He got to see my receipt, and I got to
have this annoying tag thingy removed. A pretty good performance, I thought,
from somebody who has a pretty boring job, does not speak English as a first
language, and is probably on minimum wage (the security guard, not me).

It's clearly a difficult position for the stores. They don't want to be a
soft touch, but they don't want to upset their customers either. In your
case, they very clearly failed, which you have demonstrated by bringing
proceedings against them. Hopefully, they will have learnt, and I am not
sure that you will gain a great deal by taking this case all the way to
court. Hopefully, they will offer some sort of settlement, so that you won't
have to suffer the loss of time and the stress of going to court. Even the
biggest win you could possibly imagine won't affect ASDA/Walmart in any
meaningful way, so there is nothing you can do to get vengeance for the
indignity you suffered.

I know you wanted advice on the soundness of your case, rather than a homily 
on the wisdom of proceeding. Sorry.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:10:11 +0100, "steve robinson"
 wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>> 
>> > By way of some background to my question, in December last year I
>> > was detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm.
>> > Because of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently,
>> > I am pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault,
>> > battery, and false imprisonment.
>> > 
>> > They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
>> > state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
>> > suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
>> > arrest me.
>> > 
>> > My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
>> > suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
>> > grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
>> > cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence
>> > was in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not
>> > lawful.
>> 
>> That case is no longer valid precedent, because the law regarding
>> "citizens arrest" change with the Serious Organised Crime And Police
>> Act 2005 (the relevant parts of which came into force in January
>> 2007).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
>> > reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
>> > scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
>> > suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers,
>> > for example?
>> 
>> It is very much up to the court to decide.
>> 
>> AFAIK, there are no decided cases on record since the change in the
>> law which hinged on that point.
>> 
>> My personal opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
>> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
>> to have their bags checked voluntarily would probably be seen as
>> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.
>> 
>> 
>
>They still need to justify thier actions , its not a legal requirement
>to allow store security  to search you or your property without your
>consent. Its unlikely a court would side with a security gaurd unless
>he/she could back up thier beliefs , refusing to comply with thier
>demands to open your bag just wouldnt cut it .
>

That is your opinion.

Mine is different.

Until courts start hearing cases based on this point, we won't have
anything more than our personal opinions.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Luxuriantly hand-crafted from only the finest ASCII.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:15:05 +0100, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
>> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
>> to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
>> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.
>
>
>You might well be right, in these benighted times.   We all know that those 
>alarms are uselessly unreliable, but try convincing a judge of that.
>
>However, what would be the situation if I was innocent of theft and declined 
>to be searched or arrested by the shop staff, and used whatever force was 
>necessary to continue on my business?    AIUI, this does not constitute an 
>offence unless the arrest is being made by a uniformed/warranted Police 
>Officer...?
>

Correct

But nor would it constitute any offence by the security guard to use
"reasonable force" in arresting you - provided he had reasonable
grounds for suspicion that you were committing an offence.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't let the computer bugs bite!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:00:18 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Aug 31, 1:15 am, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>> You might well be right, in these benighted times.   We all know that those
>> alarms are uselessly unreliable, but try convincing a judge of that.
>>
>> However, what would be the situation if I was innocent of theft and declined
>> to be searched or arrested by the shop staff, and used whatever force was
>> necessary to continue on my business?    AIUI, this does not constitute an
>> offence unless the arrest is being made by a uniformed/warranted Police
>> Officer...?
>
>Well, that is the scenario in R v Self [1992] - which is a very
>interesting case. Given his behaviour, it strains credulity that
>Graham Self was acquitted of theft. Had he been any other person but a
>"detective constable under a great deal of stress", he would surely
>have been convicted.
>
>But the law is very clear, if no offence is committed, an 'any person
>arrest' is not lawful, and the suspect may use reasonable force to
>resist such an arrest.

You are wrong.

Read the changed law I linked to.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Of all the people I've met you're certainly one of them
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Mark Goodge  wrote in
news:ohdlb4l9baj6q8p94544m42i2lu9qqr5n8@news.markshouse.net: 

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
snip
> 
>>Under such circumstances, it cannot be the case that a reasonable
>>person, without passion, prejudice, or pathological suspicion, can
>>reasonably suspect that the sounding of the alarm alone is
>>reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has comitted an
>>offence (and therefore grounds for arrest).
> 
> The sounding of the alarm is sufficient reason for the guard to do
> what he is trained to do when the alarm sounds. That is, check
> those leaving the store in order to either eliminate them from
> suspicion or restrain them for further investigation by the
> police. 

While generally agreeing with the points you are making, I think it 
would be a dramatic change in our relationship with shopkeepers if 
security guards were allowed to round up and arrest anyone unwilling to 
be be searched after an alarm went off.  I hope that other objective 
reason for suspicion of an individual is required. Perhaps this would 
be different if each customer was asked to agree to be searched when an 
alarm went off before entering the shop.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Aug 30, 11:40 pm, Alex Heney  wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>> >By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
>> >detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
>> >of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
>> >pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
>> >false imprisonment.
>>
>> >They have filed a rather flimsy defence to the claim. But they do
>> >state their belief that the security guard had reasonable grounds to
>> >suspect an offence was in progress, and therefore had the right to
>> >arrest me.
>>
>> >My reply to this is that the security guard was pathologically
>> >suspicious, and that such an alarm by itself would not be reasonable
>> >grounds to arrest. I am also aware that R v Self [1992] appears to
>> >cover such a scenario, where the court found that where no offence was
>> >in fact committed, then an arrest outside the store is not lawful.
>>
>> That case is no longer valid precedent, because the law regarding
>> "citizens arrest" change with the Serious Organised Crime And Police
>> Act 2005 (the relevant parts of which came into force in January
>> 2007).
>>
>>
>>
>> >However, there is a dearth of information regarding what would be
>> >reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence in a shoplifting
>> >scenario. Would a security alarm in itself be reasonable grounds for
>> >suspicion of an offence? What about hearsay from other customers, for
>> >example?
>>
>> It is very much up to the court to decide.
>>
>> AFAIK, there are no decided cases on record since the change in the
>> law which hinged on that point.
>>
>> My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
>> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
>> to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
>> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.
>>
>>
>>
>> >I would greatly appreciate if anyone could tell me of any previous
>> >cases to which I can refer.
>>
>> I'm not sure there are any which take account of the law as it now
>> stands, and which will really be relevant. That is quite a recent
>> change in the law, and cases usually only set precedent if the initial
>> decision is appealed.
>> --
>> Alex Heney, Global Villager
>> I know Karate, Kung Fu, and 47 other dangerous words
>> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You have a habit Alex of either stating the obvious, or stating the
>"man on the street" view which is generally unenlightened.
>
>Of course it is "up to the court to decide" what are reasonable
>grounds. That is why I wish to know what the courts have decided on
>previous occasions - after all, judges are not known to decide a case
>on a mere coin toss; instead they use logic, authorities, and
>statutes.
>

While I did say that it is up to the court to decide, that was just a
preliminary to the much more important part which was the following
sentence, in which I answered your query as best I could - namely that
I do not believe there *is* any such case since the change in the law.


>With regard to your "personal opinion" offered, I can identify two
>serious flaws.
>Firstly, a refusal to cooperate (and hence an assertion of one's civil
>rights) can never be interpreted as suspicious behaviour and therefore
>grounds for arrest - which leaves only the alarm as grounds for
>suspicion...

You are wrong, of course.

*You* might not ever consider that as creating grounds for suspicion,
but that certainly is not enough to be able to say it *can never* be
interpreted a such.

Once again, stating the obvious, if you allege unlawful arrest, and
the guard says that the combination of facts made him reasonably
suspect, then it is up to the court to decide whether, in all the
circumstances, that was reasonable.


>
>Secondly, I do not agree that the alarm going off is grounds for
>suspicion. The alarm can sound for a variety of reasons, none of which
>would require me to act in any way irregularly.


That is your opinion.

Mine is different.

Until courts start hearing cases based on this point, we won't have
anything more than our personal opinions.

<snip irrelevant material>

>I know I've laboured the point here Alex, but surely you'll agree, if
>someone is directly observed to conceal an item and attempt to leave
>without paying, there will usually be reasonable grounds for suspicion

No.

In that situation, there will *alway7s* be reasonable grounds for
suspicion, not *usually*.

>
>On the other hand, the reasons for the alarm to sound are manifold
>(without going back and counting, I have probably listed more than a
>dozen above), and only a minority of those reasons are related to any
>irregularity in the behaviour of the suspect shopper. The rest of the
>alarms are caused exclusively by the behaviour of the store, it's
>employees, or the malfunction of the technology.

But regardless of how many possible reasons there may be, a large
majority of actual alarms happen when a tagged item is taken through
the sensor field.

It doesn't matter how many different possibilities there are, it is
more important how likely they are. If one cause is overwhelmingly
more common, then it seems reasonable to expect that to be the case
until shown otherwise.

And given that a large majority of innocent people *will* be quite
happy to have their bags checked and the offending tag removed,
failure to cooperate *can* be seen as suspicious.

As this will be a civil action, the courts will be deciding on balance
of probabilities, whether he had reasonable grounds for suspicion or
not.

If they *do* decide against, then it seems to me that door alarms in
stores will immediately become a complete waste of space and energy.


>
>Under such circumstances, it cannot be the case that a reasonable
>person, without passion, prejudice, or pathological suspicion, can
>reasonably suspect that the sounding of the alarm alone is reasonable
>grounds to suspect that a person has comitted an offence (and
>therefore grounds for arrest).
>
>With regard to SOCPA 2005, it did not change the provisions of PACE
>1984 in any way that is relevant to my question.

Yes it did.

Prior to that change, you had to *know* that an arrestable offence
*had* occurred or was occurring.

After that change, you only have to have "reasonable suspicion" that
an indictable offence is occurring.

(Note both the change from knowing to suspecting, and the change from
"arrestable" to "indictable".)


>
>Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
>indeed anyone else's thoughts.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Why are Chinese fortune cookies written in English?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:15:05 +0100, "Steve Walker"
>  wrote:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that a
>>> combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being unwilling
>>> to have their bags checked voluntarily would *probably* be seen as
>>> sufficient grounds if and when such a case ever comes to court.

>> However, what would be the situation if I was innocent of theft and
>> declined to be searched or arrested by the shop staff, and used
>> whatever force was necessary to continue on my business?    AIUI,
>> this does not constitute an offence unless the arrest is being made
>> by a uniformed/warranted Police Officer...?
>
> Correct
>
> But nor would it constitute any offence by the security guard to use
> "reasonable force" in arresting you - provided he had reasonable
> grounds for suspicion that you were committing an offence.


I wonder when we'll see the first death or serious injury, as the respective 
parties escalate their use of lawful violence against each other in the 
Waitrose carpark.   Each might be assisted as the struggle went on, leading 
to a huge soccer-style brawl with bodies littered on the ground.    And at 
the end of it all, no-one would have committed any offence (assuming 
reasonable escalation).

I take back everything I've said about this government, if they're 
encouraging stuff like this then they've obviously got a sense of humour 
after all.

"Steve Walker"  wrote in
news:6i0ge5Foc0raU1@mid.individual.net: 

> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:15:05 +0100, "Steve Walker"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> My *personal* opinion, as I have stated on here before is that
>>>> a combination of the alarm going off and the "suspect" being
>>>> unwilling to have their bags checked voluntarily would
>>>> *probably* be seen as sufficient grounds if and when such a
>>>> case ever comes to court. 
> 
>>> However, what would be the situation if I was innocent of theft
>>> and declined to be searched or arrested by the shop staff, and
>>> used whatever force was necessary to continue on my business?   
>>> AIUI, this does not constitute an offence unless the arrest is
>>> being made by a uniformed/warranted Police Officer...?
>>
>> Correct
>>
>> But nor would it constitute any offence by the security guard to
>> use "reasonable force" in arresting you - provided he had
>> reasonable grounds for suspicion that you were committing an
>> offence. 
> 
> 
> I wonder when we'll see the first death or serious injury, as the
> respective parties escalate their use of lawful violence against
> each other in the Waitrose carpark.   Each might be assisted as
> the struggle went on, leading to a huge soccer-style brawl with
> bodies littered on the ground.    And at the end of it all, no-one
> would have committed any offence (assuming reasonable escalation).
> 
> I take back everything I've said about this government, if they're
> encouraging stuff like this then they've obviously got a sense of
> humour after all.

I agree:  if the arrest is lawful it must be unlawful to resist it, 
at least in most circumstances, otherwise you have most of the 
ingredients of the Wild West.

-- 
Percy Picacity

> The mere fact that a security alarm is going off, does not provide 
> reasonable grounds for arresting *everyone* in the vicinity. That ought to 
> go without saying.

You'd have hoped but since it appears to be legal to arrest anyone who 
had access to a CCTV tape when it got overwritten a court might also 
conclude it is lawful to arrest anyone in the vicinity of any other item 
when it goes missing.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1844.html

Based on the court's reasoning, "it is not unusual for an arresting 
officer to suspect a number of persons of committing an offence whilst 
at the same time appreciating that not all whose suspected will prove to 
be involved", it would be lawful (for a constable) to arrest every 
shopper in the store when the alarm went off.

On 31 Aug, 18:20, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
>
> >Of course it is "up to the court to decide" what are reasonable
> >grounds. That is why I wish to know what the courts have decided on
> >previous occasions - after all, judges are not known to decide a case
> >on a mere coin toss; instead they use logic, authorities, and
> >statutes.
>
> As others have said, the law has changed since previous precedent was
> set and there is currently no precedent. So no-one can tell you what
> the courts have decided on previous occasions, as there are not yet
> any precedent-setting ocasions to be reported. If you want to be the
> person involved in the case which sets precedent, that's up to you.

Compare the original s.24(4) and (5) of PACE 1984, with s.110 SOCPA
2005 (specifically the insertion of s.24A(1) and (2) into PACE 1984).
The wording and effect of both appear identical - the only difference
being reference to "indictable offences" instead of "arrestable
offences". There does not appear to be any relevant change made to the
right for any person to make an arrest.

R v Self deals with s.24(4) and (5) of PACE 1984. It appears to me
that Self applies equally to s.110 SOCPA 2005 - judges are quite free
to interpret recent legislation in the context of decisions on
previous legislation, which the recent legislation is intended to
replace.


> >With regard to your "personal opinion" offered, I can identify two
> >serious flaws.
> >Firstly, a refusal to cooperate (and hence an assertion of one's civil
> >rights) can never be interpreted as suspicious behaviour and therefore
> >grounds for arrest - which leaves only the alarm as grounds for
> >suspicion...
>
> A refusal to cooperate is not, alone, enough, I agree. But you seem to
> be making the mistake of assuming that each item of justification
> needs to be taken alone.

I don't think I am. What I am saying is that no right to arrest
existed at the time the alarm went off - because the alarm is not
reasonable grounds. They cannot then stop me with a view to finding
the required grounds for arrest. My refusal to cooperate was quite
legitimate, and at that point I should have been free to go.


> >Secondly, I do not agree that the alarm going off is grounds for
> >suspicion. The alarm can sound for a variety of reasons, none of which
> >would require me to act in any way irregularly.
>
> Again, you are correct as far as the alarm alone is concerned. But
> combined with a refusal to cooperate, then there may well be
> sufficient grounds.

This is voodoo logic. The effect of what you are saying is that, when
the alarm goes off, I can either remain by consent and empty my bags,
or be detained by force and have my bags emptied.

This is why the law states the grounds for arrest must pre-exist.
Either a person can be arrested, or he can continue on his way. And if
he so chooses to continue on his way, that cannot be grounds for
suspicion.


> >For example, I believe the technology operates on simple RF resonance,
> >so you have the potential for external RF sources to cause activation
> >- anecdotal evidence suggests pacemakers, key fobs, etc can all cause
> >such false alarms. It may be an extraordinary malfunction of the
> >alarm, or improper maintenance - perhaps it was poorly tuned/overly
> >sensitive to background RF. Then there is till operator error -
> >failure to remove the tag from the garment. Or there is failure on the
> >part of the person tagging the garments in the first place - perhaps
> >they placed two tags on the same garment, and the till operator
> >assumed there was only one and failed to remove the second. Or perhaps
> >the device at the till malfunctioned, and did not deactivate the tag
> >(I refer to the kind of tag that is contained in/part of the item).
> >Then there are self-service checkouts where tags are supposed to be
> >deactivated automatically - this technology can fail, as in my
> >particular case. On the other hand I may have walked in with a tagged
> >garment (because of some other store's previous mistake), or someone
> >may have placed a loose tag on me, as a joke perhaps, or as a
> >distraction while a real thief made good their escape. Indeed I may
> >even have walked in the store with a tag, or some other device, with
> >the intention of setting off the alarm (which I understand is not a
> >crime). Or perhaps some other person nearby set off the alarm, for
> >whatever reason, intentional or not. Could the security guard even
> >tell who set the alarm off, when multiple people are passing through
> >the detectors at once in a busy Asda store?
>
> There are, indeed, plenty of reasons why the alarm could have gone
> off. But, when it goes off, suspicion is most likely to fall on a
> person who refuses to cooperate in investigating the alarm.

Indeed. And therein lies the problem. No reasonable and objective
person would consider the alarm to be indicative of anything, because
it relies on too many unreasonable assumptions about the behaviour of
other people involved in the administration of the security system.

As I said, contrast the relatively reasonable suspicion when directly
observing someone to conceal an item on their person (especially if
done in such a way that it could not be an innocent mistake), to the
vague and esoteric causes of the alarm sounding.


> >I know I've laboured the point here Alex, but surely you'll agree, if
> >someone is directly observed to conceal an item and attempt to leave
> >without paying, there will usually be reasonable grounds for suspicion
> >- there will be few innocent explanations for such behaviour, and even
> >non-criminal explanations will involve some genuine error by the
> >shopper themselves i.e. "I intended to pay but forgot it was in my
> >pocket" (see R v Self [1992] for an interesting scenario).
>
> >On the other hand, the reasons for the alarm to sound are manifold
> >(without going back and counting, I have probably listed more than a
> >dozen above), and only a minority of those reasons are related to any
> >irregularity in the behaviour of the suspect shopper. The rest of the
> >alarms are caused exclusively by the behaviour of the store, it's
> >employees, or the malfunction of the technology.
>
> The majority of alarms are caused by a tagged item being taken past
> the detectors. In many (possibly most) of those cases, this is due to
> the checkout operator failing to remove the tag correctly. But, if
> that is the case, then it's in the interests of the customer to return
> to the store and get the tag dealt with. After all, if the tag is
> later discovered but the receipt for payment has since been lost, the
> customer has no way of proving that they bought the item legitimately
> and tehrefore suspicion will inevitably rest on them. Far better to go
> back in and get the tag fixed while they still have the proof that the
> item was paid for.

You're quite right, and when it was explained to me, that is exactly
what I did. On considering that there may have been a large tag still
attached (which I had certainly not noticed when selecting or paying
for the garment), I allowed them to take my garment, return in store,
and remove/deactivate the tag. (I am not aware whether the tag was a
bulky one that is removed, or one that is integral in the garment and
is merely deactivated - I did not see any tag at any time, so I assume
it was of the kind that is integral in the garment).

But why not have a more unobtrusive way of warning customers that a
tag has been accidentally been left on their garment, or have some
sort of checking procedure at each till, as opposed to causing
embarassment and anxiety outside the store (caused by the quite
unreasonable, but real, suspicions of other shoppers)? Furthermore,
why did the security guard not simply explain to me that a bulky tag
may have been left on some garment I had purchased, instead of going
on to ask for my reciept (which clearly indicates he did not have a
mistake in mind)?


> >Under such circumstances, it cannot be the case that a reasonable
> >person, without passion, prejudice, or pathological suspicion, can
> >reasonably suspect that the sounding of the alarm alone is reasonable
> >grounds to suspect that a person has comitted an offence (and
> >therefore grounds for arrest).
>
> The sounding of the alarm is sufficient reason for the guard to do
> what he is trained to do when the alarm sounds. That is, check those
> leaving the store in order to either eliminate them from suspicion or
> restrain them for further investigation by the police.

Is it indeed sufficient reason for an arrest? That is the question.


> Also, as has been stated in another reply to your post, accusations of
> pathological suspicion directed against the guard are hardly likely to
> help your case. If you feel the need to cast aspersions against the
> mental health of the employee, then you will need to obtain strong
> evidence to show a prior pattern of pathological behaviour if this is
> to have any chance of standing up in court. If this is your first
> encounter with this particular guard, and you have no collaborating
> evidence from other people who have encountered him in the past, then
> this is a total non-starter.

I'll choose some other adjective to describe him in court perhaps.


> >Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
> >indeed anyone else's thoughts.
>
> My thoughts are that you have virtually no chance of winning a court
> case for wrongful arrest, let alone battery. However, if you feel you
> were treated with unreasonable harshness during the time you were
> detained, then a stiff letter to Asda HQ is likely to produce an
> apology and possibly an offer of some token compensation.

I'm afraid not. I wrote to Asda 3 times and visited in store once,
over a period of 4 months, before I issued proceedings. The first
letter merely asked for an apology - there was no reply. I confirmed
in store that the letter was recieved and was being dealt with - on
meeting with a rather impatient assistant manager. The second letter
was a notice of intention to claim and demanded a full response - no
reply. The third letter warned them of the consequences of
disregarding the pre-action protocol - no reply. So I commenced a
claim. And when the defence was filed, it stated that, even to that
day, they retained the suspicion that I had stolen something!

On 31 Aug, 02:50, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste  wrote:
> > Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
> > indeed anyone else's thoughts.
>
> My thought is that someone who replies to a defence of reasonableness with
> an accusation that the security guard suffers from a pathological condition
> may make a poor witness.
>
> Tony

Perhaps you can put it more eloquently Tony.

I know I haven't given every detail of the events, but I can tell you
I rang 999 to effect my release from that situation (having warned the
security guard I would do so). Even as I did so the security guard
thought it to be some wild ploy, and the defence to the claim suggests
I am still under suspicion by Asda of having broken the law (even
though it was shown on the night in question, in front of two
constables, that there had been a mistake).

As I say Tony, their behaviour is outrageous, and it seems to me that
the security guard (as well as the entire company) can only be
described as pathologically suspicious.

While there is certainly a criminal element in society, the vast
majority of people are honest. Asda, who have no means to discriminate
between the two groups, simply treat all people with suspicion -
without any regard, it seems, to a person's civil rights. You cannot
force all and sundry to empty their bags and turn out their pockets on
a whim.

Moreover, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility to have a
more accurate security system. Ultimately, Asda perform a cost/benefit
analysis on how rigourous the security system needs to be. If they
wish to use the alarm as authoritive indication of wrongdoing, but
they can also save money by having a lax implementation, they must be
willing to compensate those wrongly accused because of that lax
implementation.


On 31 Aug, 13:50, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> Ste  posted
>
> >But the law is very clear, if no offence is committed, an 'any person
> >arrest' is not lawful, and the suspect may use reasonable force to
> >resist such an arrest.
>
> Is it so clear?
>
> What if the arrester *is* an authorised person, but the grounds for
> lawful arrest are not present?
>
> Les

Perhaps you are familiar with some legislation that I am not, Les. If
there are no grounds for lawful arrest, then it is necessarily an
unlawful arrest, and a person is entitled to defend against it.

I am not sure what you mean by "authorised person". If you are
referring to a constable arresting without grounds, judges have
advised in the past that the best response to an arrest by a constable
that you perceive to be unlawful is to go quietly and then contact a
solicitor.

But the fact remains, the police have broad powers to arrest, and
cases where the police have arrested unlawfully are normally quite
outrageous examples.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:45:05 +0100, GB put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>"Ste"  wrote in message 
>news:a3585d42-41ee-4222-bbc3-8250a44a1eba@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 30, 11:40 pm, Alex Heney  wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:08 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>> >By way of some background to my question, in December last year I was
>> >detained outside my local Asda store because of a false alarm. Because
>> >of their arrogant behaviour on that night and subsequently, I am
>> >pursuing a county court claim against Asda for assault, battery, and
>> >false imprisonment.
>>
>I was stopped by the security guard outside Tesco 3 or 4 days ago. The
>difference is that he was absolutely charming about it. As I had just bought
>some malt (whisky, not vinegar, I hope), he pointed out that I would have
>great difficulty removing the security tag at home. So, the up-shot was a
>win-win situation for both of us. He got to see my receipt, and I got to
>have this annoying tag thingy removed. A pretty good performance, I thought,
>from somebody who has a pretty boring job, does not speak English as a first
>language, and is probably on minimum wage (the security guard, not me).
>
>It's clearly a difficult position for the stores. They don't want to be a
>soft touch, but they don't want to upset their customers either. In your
>case, they very clearly failed, which you have demonstrated by bringing
>proceedings against them. Hopefully, they will have learnt, and I am not
>sure that you will gain a great deal by taking this case all the way to
>court. Hopefully, they will offer some sort of settlement, so that you won't
>have to suffer the loss of time and the stress of going to court. Even the
>biggest win you could possibly imagine won't affect ASDA/Walmart in any
>meaningful way, so there is nothing you can do to get vengeance for the
>indignity you suffered.
>
>I know you wanted advice on the soundness of your case, rather than a homily 
>on the wisdom of proceeding. Sorry. 

I think you've neatly demonstrated what the real problem was with the
OP's experience, though. There are two separate questions here:

1. Was the guard justified in detaining the OP?

2. Was the incident handled properly by those involved?

Based on my own understanding of the law, as well as the comments of
others here, it seems pretty clear that the answer to the first is
"yes". However, from the OP's description of the event, it seems that
the answer to the second is "no". What this means, therefore, is that
it's a customer service issue, not a legal issue - no law was broken
by the guard or the store, but, on the other hand, just because they
had the right to do what they did doesn't mean that they should have
done it the way they did. That's why I think that a more effective
course of action would be to take it up with Asda's complaints
department rather than wasting money on a court action that will
almost certainly be fruitless.

Mark 
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message
>The majority of alarms are caused by a tagged item being taken past
>the detectors. In many (possibly most) of those cases, this is due to
>the checkout operator failing to remove the tag correctly. But, if
>that is the case, then it's in the interests of the customer to return
>to the store and get the tag dealt with. After all, if the tag is
>later discovered but the receipt for payment has since been lost, the
>customer has no way of proving that they bought the item legitimately
>and tehrefore suspicion will inevitably rest on them.

This is not always the case, as the item will have been 'registered' on the 
till roll and recorded, even the day, time, etc.
I personally have taken items back to well known food stores and have not 
always had the receipt, but I was asked the day and approximate time, and 
within a few moments the item in question was shown on the customer helpers 
computer screen.

>Far better to go
>back in and get the tag fixed while they still have the proof that the
>item was paid for.

Sensible, but not essential.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:30:09 +0100, Percy Picacity put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge  wrote in
>news:ohdlb4l9baj6q8p94544m42i2lu9qqr5n8@news.markshouse.net: 
>
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>snip
>> 
>>>Under such circumstances, it cannot be the case that a reasonable
>>>person, without passion, prejudice, or pathological suspicion, can
>>>reasonably suspect that the sounding of the alarm alone is
>>>reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has comitted an
>>>offence (and therefore grounds for arrest).
>> 
>> The sounding of the alarm is sufficient reason for the guard to do
>> what he is trained to do when the alarm sounds. That is, check
>> those leaving the store in order to either eliminate them from
>> suspicion or restrain them for further investigation by the
>> police. 
>
>While generally agreeing with the points you are making, I think it 
>would be a dramatic change in our relationship with shopkeepers if 
>security guards were allowed to round up and arrest anyone unwilling to 
>be be searched after an alarm went off.  I hope that other objective 
>reason for suspicion of an individual is required. Perhaps this would 
>be different if each customer was asked to agree to be searched when an 
>alarm went off before entering the shop.

The number of people who refuse to cooperate when asked to do so by a
security guard is very small. Most alarms are errors (usually caused
by a tag not being correctly removed by the checkout operator), and
most customers are positively eager to demonstrate their innocence
when they are the victims of such an error.

Unless the store is extremely busy, the guard can usually identify
which individual passing the detectors has caused the alarm to go off,
so if that particular person refuses to cooperate then there are very
good grounds for suspicion.

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge wrote:

> The sounding of the alarm is sufficient reason for the guard to do
> what he is trained to do when the alarm sounds. That is, check those
> leaving the store in order to either eliminate them from suspicion or
> restrain them for further investigation by the police.

In your view, of course....   :o)

It will be interesting to see when the first cases appear in court, with 
innocent citizens protesting the humiliation and inconvenience of being 
publicly arrested as a thief, based purely on a signal from alarm equipment 
which is notoriously unreliable.

I think that you and Alex are right, and the court will find for the store 
simply because the alternative would be unpalatable (eg a charter for the 
brazen shoplifter).   A bit like Lord Denning's view on the Birmingham Six - 
"This is such an appalling vista....etc".

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:heulb4du1m8pd3qrr8gmegbaepu14k2qoa@4ax.com...
>>
>>But the law is very clear, if no offence is committed, an 'any person
>>arrest' is not lawful, and the suspect may use reasonable force to
>>resist such an arrest.
>
> You are wrong.
>

He's right, surely, on the second part of that, ie that you can use 
reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest?

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:f52mb4ph8ebrpkqh1s60ttrl8pl3v99iha@news.markshouse.net...
>
> The number of people who refuse to cooperate when asked to do so by a
> security guard is very small. Most alarms are errors (usually caused
> by a tag not being correctly removed by the checkout operator), and
> most customers are positively eager to demonstrate their innocence
> when they are the victims of such an error.

You surely don't have any basis for that assertion, do you?

Anyway, the OP can call me as a witness - I (initially at least) refused to 
cooperate with Tesco's security guard.

Mark Goodge  wrote in
news:f52mb4ph8ebrpkqh1s60ttrl8pl3v99iha@news.markshouse.net: 



> 
> The number of people who refuse to cooperate when asked to do so
> by a security guard is very small. Most alarms are errors (usually
> caused by a tag not being correctly removed by the checkout
> operator), and most customers are positively eager to demonstrate
> their innocence when they are the victims of such an error.
> 
> Unless the store is extremely busy, the guard can usually identify
> which individual passing the detectors has caused the alarm to go
> off, so if that particular person refuses to cooperate then there
> are very good grounds for suspicion.
> 
> Mark

So the freedom not be searched when leaving a shop is a very small 
one that not many people want, so we shouldn't worry about losing 
it?  Everyone agrees that these alarms are only rarely indicators of 
deliberate theft, so historically the criterion of reasonable 
suspicion was not met by an alarm alone.  Now you are saying it 
would be better for everyone if we just submit to a search on the 
off chance, to give the authorities a better chance to catch thought 
criminals ^W^W shoplifters ^W dysfunctional consumption units?


-- 
Percy Picacity

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:6i0ge5Foc0raU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I take back everything I've said about this government, if they're
> encouraging stuff like this then they've obviously got a sense of humour
> after all.
>

I just wanted to thank you for this contribution. Much appreciated.

> That's why I think that a more effective
> course of action would be to take it up with Asda's complaints
> department rather than wasting money on a court action that will
> almost certainly be fruitless.
>

One possible justification from the OP's point of view is that he will run 
up some pretty significant costs for ASDA defending this case. I guess 
they'll instruct counsel, etc.

Really, this is a case that Asda ought to try to settle. The best they can 
hope for is that they win the case but don't recover their costs. The worst 
case is that they lose, fairly unlikely I agree, in which case they'll 
generate millions of Pounds worth of unfavourable publicity. However, this 
depends on how well the security guards perform as witnesses once they are 
in court.

Who knows, perhaps someone sensible at Asda will get to see this case before 
it goes to court?

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:35:05 +0100, Ste  wrote:

> On 31 Aug, 02:50, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:50:13 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>>> Finally, I'd appreciate your further thoughts on this matter Alex - or
>>> indeed anyone else's thoughts.
>>
>> My thought is that someone who replies to a defence of reasonableness with
>> an accusation that the security guard suffers from a pathological condition
>> may make a poor witness.
>>
>> Tony
>
> Perhaps you can put it more eloquently Tony.

I'm more famous for typos than eloquence.

> I know I haven't given every detail of the events, but I can tell you
> I rang 999 to effect my release from that situation (having warned the
> security guard I would do so). Even as I did so the security guard
> thought it to be some wild ploy, and the defence to the claim suggests
> I am still under suspicion by Asda of having broken the law (even
> though it was shown on the night in question, in front of two
> constables, that there had been a mistake).
>
> As I say Tony, their behaviour is outrageous, and it seems to me that
> the security guard (as well as the entire company) can only be
> described as pathologically suspicious.

The problem with using that term is it has a meaning which one of disease.

If this gets to dispute resolution by an independent trier of fact then
their findings will revolve around the credibility of the two witnesses and
the reasonableness of their actions.  IMO a witness who makes unsupportable
allegations about some disease of the other witness will suffer from a lack
of credibility that will place them at a disadvantage.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in
news:6vlnb4p9skhvgtsa7rvl2191mk0r39bpaq@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:35:05 +0100, Ste 
> wrote: 
> 
snip. 
>>
>> As I say Tony, their behaviour is outrageous, and it seems to me
>> that the security guard (as well as the entire company) can only
>> be described as pathologically suspicious.
> 
> The problem with using that term is it has a meaning which one of
> disease. 
> 
> If this gets to dispute resolution by an independent trier of fact
> then their findings will revolve around the credibility of the two
> witnesses and the reasonableness of their actions.  IMO a witness
> who makes unsupportable allegations about some disease of the
> other witness will suffer from a lack of credibility that will
> place them at a disadvantage. 
> 

Yes, why not say "unreasonably suspicious"?  This means exactly what 
the OP means to say, without bringing in irrelevant medical jargon.  
I don't think the OP really means to imply that the security guard 
is suffering from delusions about the whole population victimising 
ASDA.  Indeed, I suspect that the security guard is all too aware of 
a large number of real, cunning shoplifters, many of them quite 
respectable-looking.  So also will be the judge in the county court, 
who will have seen many real shoplifters try to avoid conviction.  I 
recommend sticking to the proposition that there were insufficient 
grounds for reasonable suspicion, despite the security guard's 
honest and conscientious desire to protect his employer's stock from 
daily depredation.  If the OP belongs to a visually identifiable 
minority it may help, or possibly harm, his case.



-- 
Percy Picacity

GB wrote:
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> news:6i0ge5Foc0raU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I take back everything I've said about this government, if they're
>> encouraging stuff like this then they've obviously got a sense of
>> humour after all.
>>
>
> I just wanted to thank you for this contribution. Much appreciated.

Thanks GB, you'll make me blush.


In recognition of the Home Secretary's kind gift to British civic tradition 
I have decided to launch the Saturday Tesco Brawl League, and hereby invite 
applications from local teams.   A summary of the League rules follow :

- Challenge Teams must comprise 4-10 adult players, with one designated as 
the Bait.   A Reserve Bait may be also fielded, but not in addition to the 
designated Team Members.

- At the referee's signal, the Bait enters the store and behaves 
suspiciously before making for the exit. The rest of the team may deploy 
themselves freely in any public area (although the 4-2-4 formation is 
recommended for well-coordinated play).

- Upon being challenged by a security guard or shop assistant, the Bait must 
resist being apprehended or restrained until a second security guard or shop 
assistant arrives at the incident.   At that time only, the Referee will 
signal that *one* Team member may step forward to assist the Bait in 
refusing the unlawful arrest.

- As subsequent staff members arrive, and upon the Referee's signal only, 
additional team members may reciprocally join the brawl.  League rules 
strictly require that the number of Team players on the field must never 
exceed the number of security guards and shop assistants.  Unconscious or 
disabled players (as defined by the Referee) are discounted in this.

- The game ends when the Bait is successfully restrained and taken from the 
field (Store Wins), or when the Bait safely leaves the boundary of the 
store's land (Challenge Team Wins).

- If the Police arrive before either of these have occurred, the Referee may 
declare a Draw, or award a points Victory based upon the ratio of 
unconscious or disabled players in each team (minus any penalties accrued).

- Penalties may be incurred for :

# The use of pre-prepared weapons (it is of course legitimate to 
'spontaneously' pick up a weapon from the immediate environment, which is 
why the gardening & DIY sections are often favoured by Premier League 
players).

# Excessive violence (in the Referee's judgement beyond that which is 
reasonably necessary to subdue one's opponent).

# Injuries caused to match officials or spectators as a result of careless 
or reckless play.


(Application packs available now from tescobrawl@notreally.co.uk)

Ste wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 18:20, Mark Goodge 

>> My thoughts are that you have virtually no chance of winning a court
>> case for wrongful arrest, let alone battery. However, if you feel you
>> were treated with unreasonable harshness during the time you were
>> detained, then a stiff letter to Asda HQ is likely to produce an
>> apology and possibly an offer of some token compensation.
>
> I'm afraid not. I wrote to Asda 3 times and visited in store once,
> over a period of 4 months, before I issued proceedings. The first
> letter merely asked for an apology - there was no reply. I confirmed
> in store that the letter was recieved and was being dealt with - on
> meeting with a rather impatient assistant manager. The second letter
> was a notice of intention to claim and demanded a full response - no
> reply. The third letter warned them of the consequences of
> disregarding the pre-action protocol - no reply. So I commenced a
> claim. And when the defence was filed, it stated that, even to that
> day, they retained the suspicion that I had stolen something!

Of course they do - that's their tenuous justification for treating you like 
a thief.

Well done for standing up to them Ste, and let us know how you get on at 
Court.

Mark Goodge wrote:

> The number of people who refuse to cooperate when asked to do so by a
> security guard is very small. Most alarms are errors (usually caused
> by a tag not being correctly removed by the checkout operator), and
> most customers are positively eager to demonstrate their innocence
> when they are the victims of such an error.
>
> Unless the store is extremely busy, the guard can usually identify
> which individual passing the detectors has caused the alarm to go off,
> so if that particular person refuses to cooperate then there are very
> good grounds for suspicion.

I'm sorry Mark, but that's not logical, fair or plausible (in my view).   A 
person cannot make themselves arrestably suspicious simply by declining to 
submit to a voluntary search.    It's like Catch-22 meets Kafka.

Mark Goodge wrote:
> That's why I think that a more effective
> course of action would be to take it up with Asda's complaints
> department rather than wasting money on a court action that will
> almost certainly be fruitless.

He appears to have written to them a number of times wthout success.  I 
imagine that a tactful apology in the beginning, with a few gift vouchers or 
a bunch of flowers or whatever, would've satisfied his sense of grievance.

On Mon,  1 Sep 2008 12:00:29 +0100, GB put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>news:f52mb4ph8ebrpkqh1s60ttrl8pl3v99iha@news.markshouse.net...
>>
>> The number of people who refuse to cooperate when asked to do so by a
>> security guard is very small. Most alarms are errors (usually caused
>> by a tag not being correctly removed by the checkout operator), and
>> most customers are positively eager to demonstrate their innocence
>> when they are the victims of such an error.
>
>You surely don't have any basis for that assertion, do you?

Only anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid. I'll see if I can dig up some
stats, though.

Mark
-- 
My rather pointless blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
My less pointless stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:35:05 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On 31 Aug, 18:20, Mark Goodge 
>wrote:
>>
>> A refusal to cooperate is not, alone, enough, I agree. But you seem to
>> be making the mistake of assuming that each item of justification
>> needs to be taken alone.
>
>I don't think I am. What I am saying is that no right to arrest
>existed at the time the alarm went off - because the alarm is not
>reasonable grounds. They cannot then stop me with a view to finding
>the required grounds for arrest. My refusal to cooperate was quite
>legitimate, and at that point I should have been free to go.

The alarm is certainly reasonable grounds for them to stop you and ask
you to cooperate in being checked. You have virtually no reasonable
argument otherwise, on this particular clause. After all, anyone, at
any time, has the right to ask someone else to stop and speak to them.
You don't need any grounds of suspicion in order to justify merely
that action.

If you decline to cooperate, your refusal may well be seen as grounds
for them to detain you, against your will if necessary. However, this
isn't so clearcut as their right to stop you and ask you to cooperate.
A lot would depend on whether they had any other reason to suspect
you, and how your refusal to cooperate was presented to, and perceived
by, them. 

>> >Secondly, I do not agree that the alarm going off is grounds for
>> >suspicion. The alarm can sound for a variety of reasons, none of which
>> >would require me to act in any way irregularly.
>>
>> Again, you are correct as far as the alarm alone is concerned. But
>> combined with a refusal to cooperate, then there may well be
>> sufficient grounds.
>
>This is voodoo logic. The effect of what you are saying is that, when
>the alarm goes off, I can either remain by consent and empty my bags,
>or be detained by force and have my bags emptied.

Yes. That's not voodoo logic, it's simple truth.

Actually, there's a third option, which is that you check your bags
yourself when you trigger the alarm, find the offending object and
return to have it properly de-tagged. Or you stop and talk politely to
the security guard and disarm his suspicions by the reasonableness of
your response. There's a whole range of possible positions in between
your black-and-white extremes.

>This is why the law states the grounds for arrest must pre-exist.

Sufficiently strong suspicion is grounds for an arrest.

>> There are, indeed, plenty of reasons why the alarm could have gone
>> off. But, when it goes off, suspicion is most likely to fall on a
>> person who refuses to cooperate in investigating the alarm.
>
>Indeed. And therein lies the problem. No reasonable and objective
>person would consider the alarm to be indicative of anything, because
>it relies on too many unreasonable assumptions about the behaviour of
>other people involved in the administration of the security system.

That statement is simply untrue. The majority of people will consider
that an alarm going off is the result of a tagged item being taken
past the detectors. And, in that assumption, they will usually be
right. The cause of the item being taken past the detectors is not,
usually, a result of deliberate theft - more often, it's an error by
the checkout staff who failed to detag the item correctly - but the
alarm is, nonetheless, a reasonably reliable indicator of a situation
that requires investigation.

You sound like the sort of person who would refuse to leave the
building when the fire alarm goes off, because you know that sometimes
it's a false alarm.

>> The majority of alarms are caused by a tagged item being taken past
>> the detectors. In many (possibly most) of those cases, this is due to
>> the checkout operator failing to remove the tag correctly. But, if
>> that is the case, then it's in the interests of the customer to return
>> to the store and get the tag dealt with. After all, if the tag is
>> later discovered but the receipt for payment has since been lost, the
>> customer has no way of proving that they bought the item legitimately
>> and tehrefore suspicion will inevitably rest on them. Far better to go
>> back in and get the tag fixed while they still have the proof that the
>> item was paid for.
>
>You're quite right, and when it was explained to me, that is exactly
>what I did. On considering that there may have been a large tag still
>attached (which I had certainly not noticed when selecting or paying
>for the garment), I allowed them to take my garment, return in store,
>and remove/deactivate the tag. (I am not aware whether the tag was a
>bulky one that is removed, or one that is integral in the garment and
>is merely deactivated - I did not see any tag at any time, so I assume
>it was of the kind that is integral in the garment).

Ah! So the alarm wasn't false, then? It was a genuine alarm, it was a
real situation that needed dealing with, and the security guard was
absolutely correct to identify you as the person who had triggered the
alarm. So all your arguments about other possible causes of the alarm
are entirely irrelevant here - you have just admitted that it was
triggered by an item in your posession. In that case, you really don't
have any hope whatsoever of winning your court action.

>But why not have a more unobtrusive way of warning customers that a
>tag has been accidentally been left on their garment, or have some
>sort of checking procedure at each till, as opposed to causing
>embarassment and anxiety outside the store (caused by the quite
>unreasonable, but real, suspicions of other shoppers)? Furthermore,
>why did the security guard not simply explain to me that a bulky tag
>may have been left on some garment I had purchased, instead of going
>on to ask for my reciept (which clearly indicates he did not have a
>mistake in mind)?

Maybe he had other reasons to suspect you. Maybe he thought you had a
shifty look in your eyes when he questioned you. Maybe they're all
trained to ask for the receipt as a matter of course. Maybe you should
attempt to ascertain this before proceeding with your legal actions.

>> My thoughts are that you have virtually no chance of winning a court
>> case for wrongful arrest, let alone battery. However, if you feel you
>> were treated with unreasonable harshness during the time you were
>> detained, then a stiff letter to Asda HQ is likely to produce an
>> apology and possibly an offer of some token compensation.
>
>I'm afraid not. I wrote to Asda 3 times and visited in store once,
>over a period of 4 months, before I issued proceedings. The first
>letter merely asked for an apology - there was no reply. I confirmed
>in store that the letter was recieved and was being dealt with - on
>meeting with a rather impatient assistant manager. The second letter
>was a notice of intention to claim and demanded a full response - no
>reply. The third letter warned them of the consequences of
>disregarding the pre-actio