The s.i.a door supervisor & using physical force to remove an agressive person:
- Thread starter doorman25
- Start date
The problem is NGIP is 24a of PACE allows for arrests of indictable offences only, not summary ones. That is not to say someone cannot not intervene, they may still use resonable force under the common and statutory provisions for doing so without holding the offender to hand to lawful authority afterward.
I take on what you are saying with regard offences which have sentences prescribed by law, but the wording of 24a contradicts the notion civillians can arrest without warrant for a summary offence.
I take on what you are saying with regard offences which have sentences prescribed by law, but the wording of 24a contradicts the notion civillians can arrest without warrant for a summary offence.
A little confusion here between self defence and tresspass? You have the legal right to refuse or revoke permission to enter permises and you MAY use reasonable force to remove person or persons that refuse to leave of their own accord,..yes that then DOES constitute an assualt but has NOTHING to do with self defence.
As rightly stated, justify your actions, ensure that they are reasonable in the circumstance and above all DOCUMENT what you did.
As rightly stated, justify your actions, ensure that they are reasonable in the circumstance and above all DOCUMENT what you did.
Actually, they are very closely linked. How many trespassers have you removed using the appropriate, lawful and accountable procedure, escalating to having to use reasonable force and as a result of which having ended up defending yourself from someone who turns violent?
And as I previously stated, I have used force premptively myself on someone who I was in the midsts of removing because they threatened me and started resisting. Had they not have threatened me I would have had no lawful reason to have used more force before my trespasser tried to harm me.
And as I previously stated, I have used force premptively myself on someone who I was in the midsts of removing because they threatened me and started resisting. Had they not have threatened me I would have had no lawful reason to have used more force before my trespasser tried to harm me.
Scab,..I wholeheartedly agree with the action and reasons you took it. My point if badly put, was that ejecting someone is not necessarily an action of "self defense" I do agree that more often than not the perps initial actions leave one with little doubt that force may well be the only course of action!
Taking things back to a simpler theme, if most DS read through and understand the use of force allowed to them under Sct 3 Criminal Law Act and through Common Law ( right to use pre-emptive strike) these are pretty much all you need to know on a daily basis. If you have an honestly held belief that a person is going to commit a crime you can use reasonable force in the circumstances to prevent it. If you beleive that someone is about to assault you or another you do not have to wait for that person to carry out the assault, you may use force to protect yourself or another. If you consider most situations that you may have to deal with they will mostly fall into using force to prevent crime. There is also the common law powers to detain people for committing a breach of the peace and again you may wish to google this as it provides even more powers to use force to detain without having to get into the intricacies of indictable and non indictable offences etc. What I would stress is that ECHR dictates that all force used must be the ABSOLUTE minimum amount of force required in the circumstances so again have an idea in your mind of what tactical options you have available to you BEFORE using force as if there is any comeback the 9 o'clock jury will consider all the things you could and should have done etc etc. And NEVER NEVER forget where the CCTV is..........it can save your day or ruin it!!!
Good luck.
Good luck.
Prometheus
Longterm Registered User
Without reading every thread I hope to shed some light on this subject. You have two options either use reasonable force which you entilted to use to eject or call the police. If the person is violent and aggressive towards others a criminal offence may have already been committed so the police may need to be called. The person may not display any aggression towards DS until the point he/she is asked to leave or when escorted to the door. The person may kick off in which criminal offences are inevitable, consider arrest at this point before restraint as follows.
I have posted this stated case out of interest to CPO's, DS & Security officers who in the course of their duty may find it necessary to manhandle persons with no intention of arrest. Some security personnel like to manhandle individuals more than others but this legislation may make you think twice or face a possible caution or conviction for assault and false imprisonment.
Basically Police officers detained a male called Frazer Wood outside a wine bar to confirm his identity Wood assaulted the officers and was convicted. Wood appealed against his conviction on the grounds that his liberty had not been taken away and therefore the police had no lawful entitlement to detain him or take hold of him. If he had been arrested first officers could have lawfully taken hold of him and detained him. The judges upheld the appeal and stated that the officers had no more legal authority to place their hands on Wood than an ordinary member of the public. Wood was perfectly in his rights to fight his way free. Conviction Quashed.
Consider your powers of arrest under Sec 24 PACE.
This case law does not stop a person being ejected from a licensed premises in accordance with Sec 3 Criminal Law Act (use of reasonable force). Also consider very carefully Article 5 of the HRA especially detaining persons against their will if the legal authority (Police/Courts) are not going to be involved in the process. As the individual as the enforceable right by law to seek compensation.
Bottom line act incorrectly and a caution or conviction maybe coming your way in which your licence could be revoked.
There are some sharp barristers out there who would be willing to take on such a case £££££££.
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL
____________________
Between:
Fraser Wood Appellant
v
Director of Public Prosecutions Respondent
Lord Justice Latham:
1. This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of the Crown Court at Luton which, on 17th July 2007 dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction on the 27th June 2006 by the North Hertfordshire Magistrates Court for two offences of assaulting police officers and one offence of threatening behaviour.
2. The charges arose out of the events of the evening of the 23rd February 2006. The police received a report that a customer by the name of Fraser had been disruptive and had smashed an ashtray at a public house, The Standard Bearer in Stevenage. The police officers who attended, Police Sergeant Cannon and Constables Davies and Brown who went to the scene were given a vague description of the man known as "Fraser". A check of the Police National Computer suggested that the man might be the appellant who had a reputation for violence and was infected with Hepatitis B. None of the police officers knew the appellant. Acting on information that they had received, the three officers went to Yates Wine Bar near the public house. The facts thereafter, as found by the Crown Court in its Case Stated, were as follows:
"7. On approaching Yates Wine Bar a man fitting the
description of "Fraser" emerged from the premises.
8. Sergeant Cannon took hold of the appellant by the arm and asked,
"Are you Fraser?"
9. The appellant denied that he was Fraser whereupon PC Davies took hold of the appellant's other arm.
10. Some seconds later, others emerged from Yates Wine Bar and spoke to the appellant referring to him as "Fraser".
11. We accepted the un-contradicted evidence of Sergeant Cannon about his (the Officer's) state of mind at this time when he said in cross examination,
"I was looking for Fraser, who had been reported to me as having committed an offence of criminal damage by throwing an ashtray in another public house, and I had a vague description. I had not met him but I knew him by reputation. I could imagine which way it would go if we sought to arrest him. When he (the appellant) came out of the wine bar where he was - Yates Stevenage - I had a good idea it was him. I couldn't arrest him as I was not sure who he was. I took hold of his arm, and asked, "Are you Fraser?" in order to detain him to confirm who he was. Thereafter, a very short time after, others came out of Yates and talked to him, referring to him as "Fraser". It crystallised and gave me reasonable grounds to arrest him. As soon as I started to detain him, he became agitated…"
12. By the time that those others had emerged from the wine bar and had addressed the appellant as "Fraser", he, the appellant, was struggling with the Officers and trying to pull away. The appellant became increasingly violent and in the ensuing struggle the appellant assaulted both Constables Davies and Brown and was guilty of threatening behaviour.
13. Because of his behaviour the appellant could not and was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at that time but was told the reason as soon as was reasonably practicable thereafter
14. Constables Brown and Davies were assaulted whilst acting in the execution of their duty.
15. The appellant was guilty of threatening behaviour contrary to Section 4 of the Public Order Act, 1986."
3. The Case Stated then went on to set out the submissions on behalf of the appellant which it said that the court rejected for the reasons given in the oral ruling by His Honour Judge Bevan on convicting the appellant. The relevant part of the ruling was in the following terms:
"The reality of the situation is – although this is not, it seems to us, crucial on this point – that he was dealing with a man that he believed, from information he had, had hepatitis B; was violent; could be seen to be drunk; and who had in fact committed an arrestable offence, as well as the officer believing that he had.
This is not a question of semantics. It is our clear view that whatever the officer says about detaining him to confirm who he was, and, "--only when others referred to him as "Fraser", having put my arm on him to detain him, it crystallised and gave me reasonable grounds to arrest him".
In fact, if one asks the question whether the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that an arrestable offence had been committed by the person standing in front of him, the answer is clearly that it had, and what the officer was doing was detaining him because he had reasonable grounds for suspicion. That suspicion crystallised in to…certainty at the point at which, first of all, it was confirmed in his mind that he was called Fraser because other people referred to him as "Fraser", and, secondly it confirmed in his mind that the person who he was detaining, who had denied being Fraser, was obviously lying and therefore behaving as if he had something to hide. In addition, he fitted the vague description of the person named Fraser that they were looking for.
We are therefore quite satisfied that what the officer was doing, as he was justified in law in doing, was seeking to arrest this man, and it is a question of semantics to say whether he was detaining him or arresting him. The fact is that he plainly had reasonable grounds to suspect the person in front of him as having committed an arrestable offence and was putting that into practice, even if he may have used unfortunate wording in cross-examination. We are satisfied that that was what he was trying to do. We are therefore satisfied that what he did, and what others following did, was lawful"
4. Mr Bowden, on behalf of the appellant, submits that the court was not entitled to come to the conclusion that it did. It is, he submits, trite law that a police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty if he seeks to restrain someone either when he has no grounds to arrest him, or when he is not purporting to arrest him, but merely to detain him or otherwise restrain him. In the latter situations, a police officer has no more right to lay hands on someone than any other member of the community. The person so restrained is entitled to use reasonable force to free himself. He has referred us to a number of authorities, but in particular to the clear statement of principle to this effect, in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, in Ludlow & Others v Burgess 75 Cr App R 227. He submits that the findings of fact in the Case Stated did not permit the court to conclude that the distinction made by Sergeant Cannon in his evidence between detaining the appellant and arresting him was mere semantics. The Sergeant, whether rightly or wrongly, concluded when he first took hold of the appellant that he did not have the power to arrest him under s.24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and did not purport to arrest him. If he had done so, he would have been bound to inform the appellant that he was under arrest. There is no suggestion that the appellant was told at that stage that he was under arrest. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the court came to that the appellant was under lawful arrest at the relevant time, that is when he was struggling, was a conclusion which was not open to the court on the facts.
5. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Fields submits that Sergeant Cannon, and indeed Constables Brown and Davies had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence, namely criminal damage, had been committed, and that the appellant, who answered the description of the man Fraser, was the person who had committed it. Accordingly, they were entitled to arrest the appellant pursuant to s.24 (2) of the Act. The court was therefore entitled to conclude that, although Sergeant Cannon did not consider that he was arresting the appellant in the first instance, that was in reality what he was doing and the two constables, in helping him, were accordingly effecting a lawful arrest when the appellant struggled. He was therefore guilty of the offences charged.
6. I have no doubt that on the basis of the Case Stated, Mr Bowden's submissions are well founded. It is perhaps unfortunate that there are no findings as to the intentions of the two constables. Nor are there any findings as to what, if anything, the officers may have said. The facts of the present case seem to me to be covered by the decision of this court in the case of Kenlin & Another v Gardiner & Another [1967] 2 Q.B. 510. In that case two school boys, innocently visiting a number of premises for a perfectly lawful purpose, aroused suspicion of police officers on duty in plain clothes. One of the police officers produced his warrant card, stated that they were police officers and asked why they were calling at the houses. It would appear that the boys did not believe that they were police officers. One of them made as if to run away and one of the constables caught hold of his arm and cautioned him. There was then a struggle which involved the other boy. Winn L. J. stated the issue in the following terms at page 519:
"So one comes back to the question in the end, in the ultimate analysis: was this officer entitled in law to take hold of the first boy by the arm – of course the same situation arises with the other officer in regard to the second boy a little later – justified in committing that technical assault by the exercise of any power which he as a police constable in the precise circumstances prevailing at that exact moment possessed?
I regret, really, that I feel myself compelled to say that the answer to that question must be in the negative. This officer might or might not in the particular circumstances have possessed a power to arrest these boys. I leave that question open, saying no more than I feel some doubt whether he would have had a power of arrest: but on the assumption that he had a power to arrest it is to my mind perfectly plain that neither of these officers purported to arrest either of these boys. What was done was not done as an integral step in the process of arresting, but was done in order to secure an opportunity, by detaining the boys from escape, to put to them or either of them the question that was regarded as the test question to satisfy the officers whether or not it would be right in the circumstances, and having regard to the answer obtained from that question, if any, to arrest them.
I regret to say that I think there was a technical assault by the police officers."
7. It seems to me that the inexorable logic of this passage is that where a police officer restrains a person, but does not at that time intend or purport to arrest him, then he is committing an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified. In the present case, Sergeant Cannon did not intend or purport to arrest the appellant when he restrained him and at no stage in the course of the fracas which resulted, did he assert that he was arresting the appellant. If he had done so or either of the constables had done so, before the appellant struggled in order to obtain his release, the position would be different. But the facts found do not support such a conclusion. It follows that the appeal is allowed, and the convictions must be quashed.
Mr Justice Underhill
8. I agree.
ARTICLE 5 RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY
1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfillment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
I have posted this stated case out of interest to CPO's, DS & Security officers who in the course of their duty may find it necessary to manhandle persons with no intention of arrest. Some security personnel like to manhandle individuals more than others but this legislation may make you think twice or face a possible caution or conviction for assault and false imprisonment.
Basically Police officers detained a male called Frazer Wood outside a wine bar to confirm his identity Wood assaulted the officers and was convicted. Wood appealed against his conviction on the grounds that his liberty had not been taken away and therefore the police had no lawful entitlement to detain him or take hold of him. If he had been arrested first officers could have lawfully taken hold of him and detained him. The judges upheld the appeal and stated that the officers had no more legal authority to place their hands on Wood than an ordinary member of the public. Wood was perfectly in his rights to fight his way free. Conviction Quashed.
Consider your powers of arrest under Sec 24 PACE.
This case law does not stop a person being ejected from a licensed premises in accordance with Sec 3 Criminal Law Act (use of reasonable force). Also consider very carefully Article 5 of the HRA especially detaining persons against their will if the legal authority (Police/Courts) are not going to be involved in the process. As the individual as the enforceable right by law to seek compensation.
Bottom line act incorrectly and a caution or conviction maybe coming your way in which your licence could be revoked.
There are some sharp barristers out there who would be willing to take on such a case £££££££.
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL
____________________
Between:
Fraser Wood Appellant
v
Director of Public Prosecutions Respondent
Lord Justice Latham:
1. This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of the Crown Court at Luton which, on 17th July 2007 dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction on the 27th June 2006 by the North Hertfordshire Magistrates Court for two offences of assaulting police officers and one offence of threatening behaviour.
2. The charges arose out of the events of the evening of the 23rd February 2006. The police received a report that a customer by the name of Fraser had been disruptive and had smashed an ashtray at a public house, The Standard Bearer in Stevenage. The police officers who attended, Police Sergeant Cannon and Constables Davies and Brown who went to the scene were given a vague description of the man known as "Fraser". A check of the Police National Computer suggested that the man might be the appellant who had a reputation for violence and was infected with Hepatitis B. None of the police officers knew the appellant. Acting on information that they had received, the three officers went to Yates Wine Bar near the public house. The facts thereafter, as found by the Crown Court in its Case Stated, were as follows:
"7. On approaching Yates Wine Bar a man fitting the
description of "Fraser" emerged from the premises.
8. Sergeant Cannon took hold of the appellant by the arm and asked,
"Are you Fraser?"
9. The appellant denied that he was Fraser whereupon PC Davies took hold of the appellant's other arm.
10. Some seconds later, others emerged from Yates Wine Bar and spoke to the appellant referring to him as "Fraser".
11. We accepted the un-contradicted evidence of Sergeant Cannon about his (the Officer's) state of mind at this time when he said in cross examination,
"I was looking for Fraser, who had been reported to me as having committed an offence of criminal damage by throwing an ashtray in another public house, and I had a vague description. I had not met him but I knew him by reputation. I could imagine which way it would go if we sought to arrest him. When he (the appellant) came out of the wine bar where he was - Yates Stevenage - I had a good idea it was him. I couldn't arrest him as I was not sure who he was. I took hold of his arm, and asked, "Are you Fraser?" in order to detain him to confirm who he was. Thereafter, a very short time after, others came out of Yates and talked to him, referring to him as "Fraser". It crystallised and gave me reasonable grounds to arrest him. As soon as I started to detain him, he became agitated…"
12. By the time that those others had emerged from the wine bar and had addressed the appellant as "Fraser", he, the appellant, was struggling with the Officers and trying to pull away. The appellant became increasingly violent and in the ensuing struggle the appellant assaulted both Constables Davies and Brown and was guilty of threatening behaviour.
13. Because of his behaviour the appellant could not and was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at that time but was told the reason as soon as was reasonably practicable thereafter
14. Constables Brown and Davies were assaulted whilst acting in the execution of their duty.
15. The appellant was guilty of threatening behaviour contrary to Section 4 of the Public Order Act, 1986."
3. The Case Stated then went on to set out the submissions on behalf of the appellant which it said that the court rejected for the reasons given in the oral ruling by His Honour Judge Bevan on convicting the appellant. The relevant part of the ruling was in the following terms:
"The reality of the situation is – although this is not, it seems to us, crucial on this point – that he was dealing with a man that he believed, from information he had, had hepatitis B; was violent; could be seen to be drunk; and who had in fact committed an arrestable offence, as well as the officer believing that he had.
This is not a question of semantics. It is our clear view that whatever the officer says about detaining him to confirm who he was, and, "--only when others referred to him as "Fraser", having put my arm on him to detain him, it crystallised and gave me reasonable grounds to arrest him".
In fact, if one asks the question whether the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that an arrestable offence had been committed by the person standing in front of him, the answer is clearly that it had, and what the officer was doing was detaining him because he had reasonable grounds for suspicion. That suspicion crystallised in to…certainty at the point at which, first of all, it was confirmed in his mind that he was called Fraser because other people referred to him as "Fraser", and, secondly it confirmed in his mind that the person who he was detaining, who had denied being Fraser, was obviously lying and therefore behaving as if he had something to hide. In addition, he fitted the vague description of the person named Fraser that they were looking for.
We are therefore quite satisfied that what the officer was doing, as he was justified in law in doing, was seeking to arrest this man, and it is a question of semantics to say whether he was detaining him or arresting him. The fact is that he plainly had reasonable grounds to suspect the person in front of him as having committed an arrestable offence and was putting that into practice, even if he may have used unfortunate wording in cross-examination. We are satisfied that that was what he was trying to do. We are therefore satisfied that what he did, and what others following did, was lawful"
4. Mr Bowden, on behalf of the appellant, submits that the court was not entitled to come to the conclusion that it did. It is, he submits, trite law that a police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty if he seeks to restrain someone either when he has no grounds to arrest him, or when he is not purporting to arrest him, but merely to detain him or otherwise restrain him. In the latter situations, a police officer has no more right to lay hands on someone than any other member of the community. The person so restrained is entitled to use reasonable force to free himself. He has referred us to a number of authorities, but in particular to the clear statement of principle to this effect, in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, in Ludlow & Others v Burgess 75 Cr App R 227. He submits that the findings of fact in the Case Stated did not permit the court to conclude that the distinction made by Sergeant Cannon in his evidence between detaining the appellant and arresting him was mere semantics. The Sergeant, whether rightly or wrongly, concluded when he first took hold of the appellant that he did not have the power to arrest him under s.24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and did not purport to arrest him. If he had done so, he would have been bound to inform the appellant that he was under arrest. There is no suggestion that the appellant was told at that stage that he was under arrest. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the court came to that the appellant was under lawful arrest at the relevant time, that is when he was struggling, was a conclusion which was not open to the court on the facts.
5. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Fields submits that Sergeant Cannon, and indeed Constables Brown and Davies had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence, namely criminal damage, had been committed, and that the appellant, who answered the description of the man Fraser, was the person who had committed it. Accordingly, they were entitled to arrest the appellant pursuant to s.24 (2) of the Act. The court was therefore entitled to conclude that, although Sergeant Cannon did not consider that he was arresting the appellant in the first instance, that was in reality what he was doing and the two constables, in helping him, were accordingly effecting a lawful arrest when the appellant struggled. He was therefore guilty of the offences charged.
6. I have no doubt that on the basis of the Case Stated, Mr Bowden's submissions are well founded. It is perhaps unfortunate that there are no findings as to the intentions of the two constables. Nor are there any findings as to what, if anything, the officers may have said. The facts of the present case seem to me to be covered by the decision of this court in the case of Kenlin & Another v Gardiner & Another [1967] 2 Q.B. 510. In that case two school boys, innocently visiting a number of premises for a perfectly lawful purpose, aroused suspicion of police officers on duty in plain clothes. One of the police officers produced his warrant card, stated that they were police officers and asked why they were calling at the houses. It would appear that the boys did not believe that they were police officers. One of them made as if to run away and one of the constables caught hold of his arm and cautioned him. There was then a struggle which involved the other boy. Winn L. J. stated the issue in the following terms at page 519:
"So one comes back to the question in the end, in the ultimate analysis: was this officer entitled in law to take hold of the first boy by the arm – of course the same situation arises with the other officer in regard to the second boy a little later – justified in committing that technical assault by the exercise of any power which he as a police constable in the precise circumstances prevailing at that exact moment possessed?
I regret, really, that I feel myself compelled to say that the answer to that question must be in the negative. This officer might or might not in the particular circumstances have possessed a power to arrest these boys. I leave that question open, saying no more than I feel some doubt whether he would have had a power of arrest: but on the assumption that he had a power to arrest it is to my mind perfectly plain that neither of these officers purported to arrest either of these boys. What was done was not done as an integral step in the process of arresting, but was done in order to secure an opportunity, by detaining the boys from escape, to put to them or either of them the question that was regarded as the test question to satisfy the officers whether or not it would be right in the circumstances, and having regard to the answer obtained from that question, if any, to arrest them.
I regret to say that I think there was a technical assault by the police officers."
7. It seems to me that the inexorable logic of this passage is that where a police officer restrains a person, but does not at that time intend or purport to arrest him, then he is committing an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified. In the present case, Sergeant Cannon did not intend or purport to arrest the appellant when he restrained him and at no stage in the course of the fracas which resulted, did he assert that he was arresting the appellant. If he had done so or either of the constables had done so, before the appellant struggled in order to obtain his release, the position would be different. But the facts found do not support such a conclusion. It follows that the appeal is allowed, and the convictions must be quashed.
Mr Justice Underhill
8. I agree.
ARTICLE 5 RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY
1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfillment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Last edited:
A Couple of points from me mate. Their are some differences depending on where you are in the UK but every offence is now arrestable.(certainly in NI) I think you have this slightly wrong, anyone can arrest for an arrestable offence if it is being committed or has been committed, however only a Police Officer can arrest a person about to commit an offence. Your example re the bottle he or indeed she would be arrested for Possession of an offensive weapon and making threats to kill probably not attempted murder.
Cheers
M
Cheers
M
Prometheus
Longterm Registered User
Agreeably all offences are now arrestable unless they can be dealt with by reporting for summons or on the spot FPN. From a police perspective the custody Sgt wil not be impressed with officers bringing arrested persons into his custody suite for piss poor offences. There are still summary offences, triable eithway and inditable only. Officers have to apply a necessity test which has ten points for the purpose of arrest i.e. prevent the suspect obsconding, to allow a prompt and effective investigation etc.
These are the things on a Constable mind during any arrest. Police officers are expected to keep their professional knowledge up to date and if they don't it will bite them on the arse.
There is so much overwhelming evidence required to prove threats to kill the CPS rarely charge for this offence they look at what they can prove. If a person is arrested for GBH with intent the CPS will probably decide to charge GBH, they have a stronger case in this form than the first.
These are the things on a Constable mind during any arrest. Police officers are expected to keep their professional knowledge up to date and if they don't it will bite them on the arse.
There is so much overwhelming evidence required to prove threats to kill the CPS rarely charge for this offence they look at what they can prove. If a person is arrested for GBH with intent the CPS will probably decide to charge GBH, they have a stronger case in this form than the first.
Last edited:
I take it this was in regards to my post. I answered in this way because i believe that this gentleman was slightly mistaken. You are spot on with the reasons for arrest, but it doesnt change the fact that any offence is now arrestable.
What is the overwhelming evidence required to prove threats to kill? We regularly charge and convict with this offence.
Regards
M
Prometheus
Longterm Registered User
I'm not saying the arrest will not be carried out in the first instance but unless the suspect admits they intended to kill the victim or wanted them to believe they were going to be killed. An advice file would be sent to the CPS in which they will apply a thresh hold test. Up until about 5 years ago Police in England and Wales used to charge but the criminal justice system was changed. Too many defendants were being charged by police and during their first appearance going not guilty partly due to over charging. The CPS had 47 days to acquire further evidence to get the suspect back to court. The CPS were effectively placed on the back foot.
As this offence is hard to prove the thresh hold test is very complex. There are too many details for me to go into. Its all to do with evidence and how credible it is, different rules may apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I interviewed many people for threats to kill in which none admitted that they intended to kill the victim or intended for them to believe that. I'm not saying its impossible to convict each case is different and will depend on the circumstances.
Threats to kill, contrary to section 16 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. (Archbold 19-124 to 19-129);
Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate.
The threat accompanies an assault, adding a charge under section 16 will normally be unnecessary. There may be an exception where the severity of the threat is not matched by the physical injury sustained in the assault. The offence will be particularly appropriate if there has been no assault or if an assault has been prevented, yet the person to whom the threat was made was given real cause to believe it would be carried out.
This the short version without going into many stated cases.
As this offence is hard to prove the thresh hold test is very complex. There are too many details for me to go into. Its all to do with evidence and how credible it is, different rules may apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I interviewed many people for threats to kill in which none admitted that they intended to kill the victim or intended for them to believe that. I'm not saying its impossible to convict each case is different and will depend on the circumstances.
Threats to kill, contrary to section 16 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. (Archbold 19-124 to 19-129);
Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate.
The threat accompanies an assault, adding a charge under section 16 will normally be unnecessary. There may be an exception where the severity of the threat is not matched by the physical injury sustained in the assault. The offence will be particularly appropriate if there has been no assault or if an assault has been prevented, yet the person to whom the threat was made was given real cause to believe it would be carried out.
This the short version without going into many stated cases.
One of the best peices of advice I was given that applies not only to self defence but equally to any sitiation where reasonable force is used is 'It is not what you do that gets you done but what you say in your statement afterwards.' It is the statement that you make to the police that is used in court months down the road (assuming it goes to court.)
Prometheus
Longterm Registered User
To all intense and purposes you raise a valid point, however relying on that chain of thought could also be ones undoing. One may not know what has been recorded on the clubs CCTV of the incident. If the CCTV is siezed before it is checked, it may not match whats in the statement. You are under no legal obligation to make a statement and the police cannot force you too. The incident may have occurred outside the entrance in which the Council CCTV may have recoded the incident in real time not time lapse. The CCTV operator may also be approached for a statement, Does it match your version of events?
One knows there is no CCTV in the club and none in the street but tucked away in a doorway is someone having a piss, they hear a commotion and observe an altercation taking place and get out their mobile phone. They think it would be fun to record the incident and stick it on you tube, they see the customer being pushed and they fall over and strike their head on the floor. The victim is left unconcious as the DS go back inside, the person recording is pissed off what has happened and goes over to the victim, they call the police and identify that the DS were responsible. The DS stick together and provide a different version of events not knowing the incident has been recorded. They all attend the police station by appointment to make statements, as the phone will be sent off for the images to be properly downloaded the only evidence they have is a statement off the victim and that of a pissed up bystander.
After the statements are signed and there is still no acknowledgement of guilt for assault a file is sent to the CPS for advice. The DS responsible for the assault is charged with ABH but the CPS considered there was insufficient evidence to charge all the DS with attempting to pervert the course of justice and are all charged with obstruct police instead. One persons actions has landed 4 or 5 others in it also. Kiss good bye to your licence.
This was a real incident which no doubt happens frequently. I'm not being over critical but members who have been on the forum for sometime know guys frequently ask questions relating to incidents that could lead to the loss of their licence.
As is evident by the comments on here, the law said minimum necessary force may be used as a last resort. My take would be to only match force with force, then it is self defence and preservation of your own wellbeing and that of those around you.
The keyword is justification, if you can justify your actions to within the boundries of the law you will be ok, CPS drop most allegations against DS but there are always those that take it too far or throw the first punch which is not necessary no matter what he called your mother.
Having worked the doors for over 10 years now in a variety of areas with a variety of clientel i have never punched a customer yet, i have restrained many, injured quite a few and knocked out my fair share but everytime i go into a situation in the back of my mind is always "someone is going ask you to justify everything you do here" so have a clear plan of action, make sure its been called on the police radio if one is available and learn some restraint techniques and you should not have many problems.
Oh and PS: Never, ever argue with the police at an incident, they have had a rough night too, dont give them reason to take it out on you!
As always humble opinion only!
The keyword is justification, if you can justify your actions to within the boundries of the law you will be ok, CPS drop most allegations against DS but there are always those that take it too far or throw the first punch which is not necessary no matter what he called your mother.
Having worked the doors for over 10 years now in a variety of areas with a variety of clientel i have never punched a customer yet, i have restrained many, injured quite a few and knocked out my fair share but everytime i go into a situation in the back of my mind is always "someone is going ask you to justify everything you do here" so have a clear plan of action, make sure its been called on the police radio if one is available and learn some restraint techniques and you should not have many problems.
Oh and PS: Never, ever argue with the police at an incident, they have had a rough night too, dont give them reason to take it out on you!
As always humble opinion only!
That is very true if CCTV is not available as is the fact your perception plays a massive part in your actions and we all had a different perception of every situation. If you 'honestly' felt at the time that you were using minimum force then there is flexibility in the system to allow for 'untrained' IE not police. Bearing in mind if you have professional training or are a bad ass martial artist this would have an effect.
Phantomsteve
Full Registered User
For what it's worth, here are the notes I made at my DS course at the weekend:
Criminal Law Act 1967:
1. A person may use reasonable force to prevent a crime
2. A person may use reasonable force to carry out an arrest
The force you use must be proportionate to the likely harm to be caused.
Common Law:
1. Any person can use reasonable force to defend themselves
2. We can use reasonable force to protect somebody else
3. We can use reasonable force to protect property.
Necessity + proportionality = reasonable force
Trespass: If behaviour is unreasonable, they can be removed from the premises under the law of trespass (their invitation to enter the premises has been revoked, therefore they are trespassing) - however trespass is a civil law matter, not criminal.
Arrests:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005:
Any person may arrest without a warrant anyone who commits or has committed an indictable offence.
Indictable: deal with in a Crown Court (e.g. murder, manslaughter, rape, indecent assault, theft, robbery, burglary, ABH, GBH, etc).
For an arrest to be legal, you *must* inform the person that they are under arrest. You are responsible for their welfare, safety and security.
===
Our Physical Intervention tutor and our Door Supervisor course tutor both emphasised the necessity and proportionality of any force which we would use. They also emphasised that conflict management techniques were essential - the message to me was clearly "physical intervention is a last resort".
My understanding of using physical force to eject an aggressive person is as follows:
- it should be a last resort (using conflict management techniques, you ideally will get them to a position where they are willing to leave the premises)
- the person has been asked to leave (thus legally making them a trespasser on the premises - not arrestable by a door supervisor, but enough to justify ejecting them)
- the person refuses to leave, and so using proportionate and necessary force, you move them towards the exit
I've never been in the position to use this, obviously, but if you have used proportionate and necessary force, you'd be covered in a court of law. Several people who have commented on different threads on this forum have stated that they have never had to use force - they have used their mouths and their brains! That's the example I plan to follow!
Criminal Law Act 1967:
1. A person may use reasonable force to prevent a crime
2. A person may use reasonable force to carry out an arrest
The force you use must be proportionate to the likely harm to be caused.
Common Law:
1. Any person can use reasonable force to defend themselves
2. We can use reasonable force to protect somebody else
3. We can use reasonable force to protect property.
Necessity + proportionality = reasonable force
Trespass: If behaviour is unreasonable, they can be removed from the premises under the law of trespass (their invitation to enter the premises has been revoked, therefore they are trespassing) - however trespass is a civil law matter, not criminal.
Arrests:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005:
Any person may arrest without a warrant anyone who commits or has committed an indictable offence.
Indictable: deal with in a Crown Court (e.g. murder, manslaughter, rape, indecent assault, theft, robbery, burglary, ABH, GBH, etc).
For an arrest to be legal, you *must* inform the person that they are under arrest. You are responsible for their welfare, safety and security.
===
Our Physical Intervention tutor and our Door Supervisor course tutor both emphasised the necessity and proportionality of any force which we would use. They also emphasised that conflict management techniques were essential - the message to me was clearly "physical intervention is a last resort".
My understanding of using physical force to eject an aggressive person is as follows:
- it should be a last resort (using conflict management techniques, you ideally will get them to a position where they are willing to leave the premises)
- the person has been asked to leave (thus legally making them a trespasser on the premises - not arrestable by a door supervisor, but enough to justify ejecting them)
- the person refuses to leave, and so using proportionate and necessary force, you move them towards the exit
I've never been in the position to use this, obviously, but if you have used proportionate and necessary force, you'd be covered in a court of law. Several people who have commented on different threads on this forum have stated that they have never had to use force - they have used their mouths and their brains! That's the example I plan to follow!