The s.i.a door supervisor & using physical force to remove an agressive person:

Phantomsteve said:
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.

The force used has nothing to do with the likely harm caused, the force used must be proportionate to the reason it is being used (stopping vandalism or stopping a murder - protecting yourself from an unarmed person or a person with a rolling pin) and it must only be the amound needed, or necessary to achieve what your lawful goal is (defence of people, property, arrest, etc..).

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

Proportional to, and minimum necessary to achieve your lawful intention. Make your + an & and you're on target.

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they can be removed from the premises under the law of trespass (their invitation to enter the premises has been revoked, therefore they are trespassing) - however trespass is a civil law matter, not criminal.

On private property they can be asked to leave for any reason you want. Even if you don't like the colour of their trousers. Explaining such a reason is a little more difficult but at the end of the day you do not legally need to explain anything if you are on private property.


Arrests:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005:
Any person may arrest without a warrant anyone who commits or has committed an indictable offence.

SOCPA 2005 amended PACE 1984. 24a, "Anyone may arrest without warrant..." and of that it applies against anyone suspected resonably or known to be committing an indictable offence or anyone reasonably suspected to have or is known to have committed an indictable offence; and a few other conditionse such as prevention or harm, no police officer being available to do it.

The actual power of arrest is provided in PACE, not SOCPA.

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.

You must inform them who you are, who you represent, that they are under arrest and why they are under arrest.

===
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!
Click to expand...

My yellow. Who was your training provider, might I ask..?
 
Scab said:
The force you use must be proportionate to the likely harm to be caused.

The force used has nothing to do with the likely harm caused, the force used must be proportionate to the reason it is being used (stopping vandalism or stopping a murder - protecting yourself from an unarmed person or a person with a rolling pin) and it must only be the amound needed, or necessary to achieve what your lawful goal is (defence of people, property, arrest, etc..).

Sorry, I should have made that clearer (I knew what my notes meant!) - what it meant (in my head when I wrote it) was "The force you use must be proportionate to the likely harm that will be/is/had been caused by the person against which you are using the force"

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

Proportional to, and minimum necessary to achieve your lawful intention. Make your + an & and you're on target.

Maybe I'm being a bit dense (it wouldn't be the first time, and doubtless wouldn't be the last!) but what's the difference between "+" and "&" in this context? I mean it to mean: "If there is necessity and it is proportional, then it is reasonable force" (again, remember these were my notes for myself, so I knew what I meant - they weren't written for somebody else, and when I copied them here, I should have expanded them a bit!)

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.

On private property they can be asked to leave for any reason you want. Even if you don't like the colour of their trousers. Explaining such a reason is a little more difficult but at the end of the day you do not legally need to explain anything if you are on private property.

Thanks for that - it makes sense - although obviously my notes used a common example!

Arrests:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005:
Any person may arrest without a warrant anyone who commits or has committed an indictable offence.

SOCPA 2005 amended PACE 1984. 24a, "Anyone may arrest without warrant..." and of that it applies against anyone suspected resonably or known to be committing an indictable offence or anyone reasonably suspected to have or is known to have committed an indictable offence; and a few other conditionse such as prevention or harm, no police officer being available to do it.

The actual power of arrest is provided in PACE, not SOCPA.

Thanks for clarifying that - it might be that I didn't take note of PACE, although I knew that PACE gave the power of arrest - I assumed that SOCPA also specifically mentioned it.

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.

You must inform them who you are, who you represent, that they are under arrest and why they are under arrest.

Again, I wrote minimal notes: our tutor *did* mention that we should say why they were under arrest. To be honest, I'd assumed that informing who I am and who I represent would be implicit (I'm on the premises with my SIA licence) - so thanks for clarifying that I need to inform them of all 4 things!
Click to expand...

Scab said:
My yellow. Who was your training provider, might I ask..?
Click to expand...

My red in response! I am a bit wary of naming my provider at the moment - are you saying that they did a bad job, or a good job?

I will say, though, that when I did a search on the forums here for my training provider, no thread mentions them - either for good or bad!
 
Hey Steve,

Yeah I understand your notes may make more sence to you. The + & thing I mentioned is perhaps me being a bit anal, but it is reasonable and proportionate not 'plus' proportionate!

Staying with the 'harm' point on your first note; again, harm has nothing to do with it since it is subjective as to what you do to that person may or may not cause them harm. Even if you used potentially lethal force against them, there remains a chance they may both stay alive and may not be injured much at all!

In a nutshell, the force you use against them must be both relative to what its legally being used for. You will get away with using more force to save a life, than you would to stop someone drawing on a wall.

Another (extreme) example: You see someone repeatedly stabbing someone. You can run over and grab their arm and potentially grapple about and get stabbed, ending your life. Or you can run over and kick them square in the face, probably amounting to GBH with intent. However, because you were doing that to stop what is reasonably suspected to be an attempted or actual murder, and to best safeguard your own safety from the knifer holder, it *should* be deemed reasonable by anyone with half a loaf!

Do the same to someone trying to steal something on the other hand... Completely unreasonable (although deserved ;) ).

Im not sure if your provider did a good job to be honest. Certainly they did not provide enough emphasis on the right points for you to be lead to making your own emphasis on the right points (SOCPA vs PACE for example, where its the PACE legislation that is key).

As for naming them, well, why not? Is your name really Phantom Steve?

:)
 
Incidently, the powers of arrest in SOCPA are as follows:

SOCPA said:
110 Powers of arrest
(1) For section 24 of PACE (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences) substitute—
....
24A Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b) suffering physical injury;
(c) causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.â€
(2) Section 25 of PACE (general arrest conditions) shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section 66 of PACE (codes of practice), in subsection (1)(a)—
(a) omit “or†at the end of sub-paragraph (i),
(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) insert “or
(iii) to arrest a person;â€

(4) The sections 24 and 24A of PACE substituted by subsection (1) are to have effect in relation to any offence whenever committed.
Click to expand...

So although PACE was the origin, SOCPA does explicitly say what the powers of arrest are, so my tutor was not inaccurate, surely?
 
No, your instructor is wrong. 110(1) SOCPA 2005:

(1) For section 24 of PACE (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences) substitute—
Click to expand...

SOCPA, as stated, amends Section 24 of PACE to include section 24a.

The legislation empowering us all to arrest for indictable offences is therefore out of 24a of PACE. You've just done what every other nugget seems to have done and just misread S110 of SOCPA. ;)
 
thanks to everyone who has commented on this post, although we sh ould just scrap all this conflict management, legal loopholes and follow wyatt earps example.......

ask them once, and if they dont comply hit them over the head with something dont you think......??;);)

doorman25
 
The first course of action should always be conflict management, listen, show empathy, remid him/ her of your function there and you are doing your job, what would they do in your position, offer a route out/ alternative venue...... only when you have tried all you can should you resort to physically removing but look tell them the police will be called and then tell them you are going to touch them to remove them from the premisies.....the golden rule use only force as necessary...and you can escalate if they resist, ie approved locks.....do not be a knuckle dragger and start ragging the person you will certainly be charged and possibly sacked....always compose yourself in a professional matter, remember its not personal its business...
 
Last edited:
To carry out a citizens arrest in the UK the term that has been mentioned in PACE section 24 is refering to an offence that is punishable by a prison sentence on a first offence of 5 years or more such as burglary, rape, murder, assault and a few others......as far as I know this has not changed.....it states that reasonable force may be used to arrest and restrain this person... ie if a person commited GBH ( broke the skin causing bleeding by incision, puncture, laceration or gunshot, this would allow you to use force to restrain in defence of a third party or yourself (Human Rights ACT) and equal or even more force including deadly force can be used but only as long as the attacker presents a current threat or is about to commit the offence....in the uk its a nightmare legal minefield...much simpler abroad......
 
Back
Top