RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Interesting Bluebottle, but I am not sure how it applies, there is of course no antecedent stage in civil hearings. Perhaps there should be.

D

You have raised a very valid and interesting point, Davy. At present, civil cases have Oral Examinations as a means of testing the viability of litigating a case. However, they are optional and not mandatory. Whether it will become mandatory along with mediation is yet to be been. What would, IMO, be of value and, perhaps, deter or even curb those who abuse the civil court system is to require a claimant to ensure that their claim is viable and that the defendant has the means to meet any potential judgement or costs. What are your thoughts?

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

You have raised a very valid and interesting point, Davy. At present, civil cases have Oral Examinations as a means of testing the viability of litigating a case. However, they are optional and not mandatory. Whether it will become mandatory along with mediation is yet to be been. What would, IMO, be of value and, perhaps, deter or even curb those who abuse the civil court system is to require a claimant to ensure that their claim is viable and that the defendant has the means to meet any potential judgement or costs. What are your thoughts?

Could it be done by the introduction of new CPR ?

D

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Could it be done by the introduction of new CPR ?

D

That, in my view, makes sound sense. And since CPRs are a statutory instrument, not a statute, any amendment could be enacted fairly quickly.

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

You would still need an independent body to sift out the legitimate cases though.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

That's what the court legal teams do. Each civil and criminal court has such a team to scrutinise cases and weed out those that have no merit or could bring the justice system into disrepute if allowed to go ahead. Its a pity they don't scrutinise warrant applications by utility companies a bit more closely. I suspect if they did, a lot would not get listed. The CPS, as you know, deal with criminal cases.

[labman]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Sowhat, exactly, is the proposed role of the CAB in fronting complaints to Trading Standards? Is this not a duplication of the court legal teams, and won't CAB have a clear conflict of interest?

[Bill-K]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

conflict of interest?

That certainly seems to have become an issue in many areas lately, with ethics seemingly suffering at the hands of predatory conspiracies - and being quietly "done away with" out in the back alley somewhere.

Going back to DavyB's earlier post, if I may...

1)Does the tort always trigger an actionable claim for damages, is the shop entitled to reclaim damages in all cases the question is just the sum.

2)Does the shop have the right to sometimes claim damages, if these can be proven to be a significant disruption to its normal business(British Aerospace).

3)Does the shop never have the right to claim damages because the costs are already part of their running costs no matter what the disruption.

I think six months ago RLP were stating the first of these options and now they seem to be saying the second. The courts do seem to be acknowledged that costs can be recovered in some cases, otherwise they would not have bothered with analyzing the breakdown of security costs etc in both cases.

To my simple mind, we originally had RLP adopting point 1 as their stance, and "Us Guys" going for point 3 (arguably not all of us, I admit). We do at least seem to have made good ground in being able to agree with RLP that perhaps the middle ground of point 2 is the way to go. I believe the double-edged significance of the Oxford case is that - yes, the shop has the right to claim damages - BUT - they will have to restrict them to a reasonable amount, and FULLY account for such claims.

As things stand, RLP are sending out fictitious (or at best - unfounded) demands for money to people who are paying up out of fear or embarrassment. That in itself is not lawful, is it ? It seems that the way to stop them is to 'educate the masses' in this respect - but I'm guessing that a great many of the victims of CR firms don't frequent forums like this - so they pay the money and run. Sure, we can maybe launch media campaigns, but unless they really snowball and 'go viral' they don't seem to have much effect. TV and tabloids seems to be the way to go, but I have no idea how to break into that. Cel and you guys did a brilliant job of this earlier, but keeping that snowball rolling seems to be the problem. With firms like RLP, I think publicity is NOT something they are very much 'into.' They are happier working away like funnel-web spiders, I believe, and would much rather not have to deal with'publicity' at all. Thus, they are blinded by the light, when they are dragged out of their hole, and they make a thorough mess of it when asked to explain their modus operandi. They would much rather just carry on preying on passers-by - with no attention being paid to their existence. Media attention is a weak-spot for them, I believe.

But - OK - so we can't manage to launch a huge media campaign against CR generally ? Surely, if it can be established that the demands being sent out are something akin to blackmail, then we have a means whereby we can RETROSPECTIVELY file claims. So - can we make it clear to these guys that they may be getting away with it right now, but they are digging their own hole, because the average guy on the street is getting 'wised up' to this scamming ?

Maybe not - because these creeps simply crawl under another stone and start all over again. BUT their clients, Stressco, Big Boots, SkidMark et al will still be liable for THEIR percentage (LOL - was it 40% or 60% ? - I forget !!!). And if nowt else, the Oxford case may well ensure that they will have to make their figures add up !!!

It will become economically non-viable for the present CR status quo to continue - and THAT is where the battle must be fought, IMHO. Morals are a spent force. Justice is either in hiding or is being held hostage. Economics is now the de rigeur 'battlefield fashion,' it seems - so let's 'Do the Strand...'

[Guest]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

The publicity thing is a difficult area.
The problem is similar to one which exists with CMC's an some shonky solicitors. They have access to the details of hundreds of accounts that go through their books, every so often they will get a win on one case, they then publicize that case and contend that it is typical of all the rest. Even though the other 99% were either not contested or failed.

Our problem is that we only come up with the odd case on here that is wiling to go all the way and disprove the legal case, mostly(quite rightly) they just want the matter resolved quickly and with the least of fuss.

[Dougal16T]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Morning all,

I just wanted to throw my hat in and suggest we might like to look at S24A of PACE:

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.

MY THOUGHTS .'

1. 'in the act', when is the offence 'complete and when does it cease to be an attempt?' Is it : ONCE THE OFFENDER HAS LEFT THE PREMISES,

2. 'reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing' this then faces the test of 'reasonableness.'Dumbell v. Roberts [1944] 1 All ER 326, Scott LJ

3. 'has been committed' this can be taken is once the offender has passed the point of payment. What if this is a genuine mistake, though?

S28 of Pace:

Section 28 of PACE is the section that provides the information which must be given to an arrested person at the time of their arrest in order for their arrest to be lawful.


28(1) when a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, (? If a person is not informed that they are being arrested - what has happened to that person - are they being detained unlawfully? the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as possible after his arrest - BUT what is the time limit for this to be done..10 minutes 12 hours..??


In some areas, retail security managers have had to deal with new police ‘policies’ that the citizen’s powers of arrest have been abolished or withdrawn for offences below the FPN limit.

These problems have normally not hit the headlines because retail security managers have developed wisdom (well I have heard it called some things, but this takes the cake!!)in order to do their jobs.

For private individuals, as we have seen, one justification for any arrest is that ‘it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead’ (24A (3) (b).(is this only because they cannot wait for the Police to attend? OR are they believing that the Police will not deal as severely with minor crime like shoplifting, as RLP do?)

Other persons (including security staff) must also be able to show that the arrest itself was ‘necessary’ (24A (3) (a)). Whilst this seems to imply that arrests are to
be avoided at all costs, it is probably intended to prevent the use of arrest as a routine activity.

For an arrest by a private person to be ‘necessary’ it must comply with one or more of four reasons given as amendments to PACE, section 24A (4). None relate
to the gravity of the offence but to the person apprehended.

The four reasons are that without being arrested the arrestee might:

1. cause physical injury to himself or any other person;
2. suffer physical injury; (I do not quite see how this could happen.....does anyone?)
3. cause loss or damage to property;
4. make off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

In order to make a lawful arrest, the security officer ‘has to have reasonable grounds ( Dumbell v. Roberts [1944] 1 All ER 326, Scott LJ) for believing that’ any one of these reasons apply.
He or she does not have to have conclusive proof that unless arrested the thief will harm himself, destroy property or run away, but there needs to be some basis for this belief.

Illegal Acts yet to be committed:

Inchoate offences in English Law means "just begun" or "undeveloped", and is used in English criminal law to refer to situations where, although a substantial offence has not been committed, the defendant has taken steps to commit it, or encouraged others to do so.^[2] These situations are generally divided into three categories; attempts, where the defendant has taken steps "towards carrying out a complete crime", incitement, where the defendant has encouraged others to commit a crime, and conspiracy, where the defendant has agreed with others to commit a crime. In each case, the defendant "has not himself performed the actus reus but is sufficiently close to doing so, or persuading others to do so, for the law to find it appropriate to punish him".
<sup>Although there is no mention of 'mens rea.' (guilty knowledge)

Just some thoughts to ask one simple question - How can RLP justify falsifying their costs? It is a deliberate act of Criminal Deception in my humble view and should be punished as such.I also think that the Retail 'Security' Industry needs a complete and total shale up from the very grass roots upwards.

Best wishes all,

Dougal</sup>

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

What you're highlighting, Dougal, stems from the House of Lords' ruling in the case of Christie -v- Leachinsky [1947] AC573, a case I had drilled into me during my police training. It set the requirement that any person detained by a police officer or private citizen must be informed of the reason for their arrest/detention. This link provides a very succinct summary of the ruling: www.leeds.ac./law/hamlyn/christie.htm.

Section 24A, Police & Criminal Act 1984 came into being to consolidate powers of arrest from a number of statutes and to make the process simpler. The reasons you list at 1 and 2 are aimed, primarily, at those who are disturbed or suffering a psychotic episode and there is a very real danger of them harming themselves or others. Up until Section 24A, PACE 1984 came into being, police officers had to use a power of arrest under the Mental Health Act to deal with those who were attempting to harm themselves and had to satisfy a number of conditions. Is now much simpler to take a person to a place of safety (police station or hospital) to be examined by a doctor and their admission to hospital arranged, where necessary.

The reason at 3 is very useful against those involved in civil unrest. However, if it is used responsibly, it can take a Rent-A-Mob element out of a protest march or meeting and keep things peaceful. The reality is that it has been abused by the police in the form of the controversial practice of Kettling, something I am strongly-opposed to as it impinges on the human rights of the innocent and puts the health and safety of those being coralled at risk.

The reason at 4 is a general-purpose measure and deals with the vast majority of offences falling within the ambit of English Criminal Law.

How will Section 24A, PACE 1984 affect the way in which retail security staff operate?

My personal view is that it should have been brought in a long time ago. Too many retail security staff are under the misguided belief that they are above the law, but they admit, themselves, that if they mess-up, they stand to lose their job. What they don't seem to realise or acknowledge is that losing their job is the very least that could happen to them for wrongfully arresting/detaining a person. They can also be charged and prosecuted for Assault and Unlawful Detention. And their employer and/or the retailer faces civil litigation for Wrongful Arrest and Unlawful Detention at the very least. It will, I suspect, force retail security staff to think very carefully before they detain or accuse someone of shoplifting and force retailers to re-think their loss prevention policy in order to ensure compliance. Any retailer who does not take it seriously is going to end up facing litigation.

What effect will Section 24A, PACE 1984 have on Civil Recovery?

It is possible that it could significantly reduce the viability of CR Schemes and operators. Up until the Oxford CC judgement and Section 24A, PACE 1984, a Let's-Try-It-And-See-If-We-Can-Get-Away-With-It attitude appears to have pervaded. This attitude is inconsistent with the main thrust of Section 24A, PACE 1984 and,as stated above, retailers will have to completely revise their loss prevention policy or face litigation. I suspect there will be those retailers who will continue to try and use CR, but, as the Oxford CC judgement becomes more widely-circulated and more and more people learn about it, it is likely to become increasingly more difficult to justify CR claims and it is this, in all probability, that will sound the death-knell for the CR industry in the UK. Even a formal investigation into a CR operator, resulting in its formal closure by the courts, could bring this about. I cannot, honestly, see other CR operators continuing if this were to happen. Human nature being what it is, they are most likely to take the view that they could be next to be investigated and close down operations before that happened.

These are my personal views on the matter.

[Celestine]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

NLJ article by Law Commission 19 10 12 copy.pdf

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

The only problem, Cel, is that there is an extremely fine dividing line between aggressive and misleading practices and Fraud by False Misrepresentation and Attempted Blackmail.

[Dougal16T]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Good morning everyone,

'What you're highlighting, Dougal, stems from the House of Lords' ruling in the case of Christie -v- Leachinsky [1947] AC573, a case I had drilled into me during my police training. It set the requirement that any person detained by a police officer or private citizen must be informed of the reason for their arrest/detention.'

Thanks Bluebottle, I too had this drummed into me in my time in the Police, and then found it a good basis for everyday 'bobbying'! We all had to re-think a substantial amount of what we had learnt already and this did not go down too well with some. I well remember the introduction of PACE and the problems and solutions it provided, although there were those who tended to try and ignore it....!!

I agree with Bluebottles viewpoint, and would just add that it may be useful/sensible for the 'Security' officers to be properly trained, licensed and controlled, if this existing system continues. At present it seems that almost anyone who applies, (for what, in my humble view, is a thankless task) , is accepted.

Some time ago I saw a discussion on whether CCTV installations are an intrusion on a customers privacy. The key question was: Are these systems being focused on prevention/detection of shoplifting, or are they being used to observe customers shopping patterns and identify displays containing items which are 'good sellers' !!

Loss prevention is a problem for everyone who opens their doors to the public of that there is no doubt, but the public need protection from Loss intimidation (where over-zealous staff and companies, (Particularly ncluding RLP), often have little regard for the Law and more focus on their Bank Balance!

I cannot condone RLP's actions in Civil Recovery when they deliberately mislead the Court.

Kind regards to all,

Dougal

[bluebottle]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Which police force did you serve with, Dougal? I served with the Metropolitan Police, initially, and then with the MoD Police up until an accident on duty ended my career. I, too, can remember when PACE came into being. And I know exactly what you mean about those who tended to try and ignore it.

I think a lot of the problems associated with the use of CCTV by retailers relate to operators who appear to have been asleep when they attended an SIA-approved CCTV Operator's Course or misinterpret what they see. I have come across this. In one case, the CCTV operator reacted and an innocent shopper was rugby-tackled to the floor, sustaining bruising. When the CCTV footage was replayed, it was found that the CCTV operator, in their haste, had not noticed that what the poor shopper had put in their pocket was a mobile phone they had been using. The retailer was subsequently sued by the shopper and settled out of court. The over-zealous security guard was sacked along with the CCTV operator.

[Dougal16T]

Re: RLP and the Oxford test case: The truth and the lies

Afternoon all

I was in Sussex BB. When we wore pointed hats, carried a truncheon, had a whistle as an alarm and were using Pye Pocketfone for communication! The words 'chocolate fireguard' spring to mind!

Turning to matters in hand - put simply RLP should be prosecuted.....at the very least for obtaining peculiarly advantage!!

Best wishes all

Dougal