Could AGS do anything worthwhile here?

Hey all (again ),

Read a thread on boards recently and was going to make a thread here, asking about it. Then I changed my mind, figuring that in the course of the thread, a solution would come up about what the OP should have done/should do.


No such solution seems to have appeared though, with people still just throwing out the idea that the OP should write a letter of complaint.



Here's the thread;


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056069475




I was just wondering if anyone here can tell me if contacting AGS in relation to this would have been a proper course of action or worthwhile? Or would it just be wasting their time?


If I were in the situation that the OP describes, I have to admit, I would be absolutely furious. :mad:

But, from reading the post in that thread, I'm struggling to think of anything the security guard has actually done wrong? Has he actually broken any law? Assuming the story is factual and completely true, the security guard seems to have certainly used excessive force and acted very aggressive. None of which seems to be against the law, though, technically.

I believe that had the security guard came into physical contact with the OP, then that would be considered assault? But from reading the thread, there was no physical contact at all, so...?


Not a big law expert at all, but this story just has me wondering a lot. If the OP had rang AGS, what would have happened? Would the Gardaì take details of the event down, and then ignore it as the OP didn't actually get touched? Or would the security guard be in trouble for acting aggressively? Perhaps scaring and embarrassing the customer? Invasion of Privacy? Anything at all?


Figure some of ye guys might have a better insight than I.



Cheers

Delancey

KKV - it may be an idea to prefix the word '' Guard '' with the word '' Security '' just to make clear this was a complaint against a Security Guard and not AGS member.

Never thought of that, for some reason. Done now

source

KKV I've been reading that thread for the last few days, and I have to say. I think it's a matter best left to civil remedies. In other words a complaint to the restaurant manager/area manager, or if he really feels strongly about it.....a solicitors letter.

Bottom line in this incident is that a member of staff was rude to a customer. While the customer found the security guards manner to be less than acceptable. The security guard was just doing a job (although way too aggressively and with no common sense being shown). As a criminal offence it's at most Section 6 POA '94, but i would say it should be dealt with more by internal discipline than arrest and charge.

Definitely not a matter for AGS, In my mind calling AGS for this would be like calling for a shop assistant being rude while serving you.

If your man is security then a complaint to the PSA.

opti76

foinse wrote: »

KKV I've been reading that thread for the last few days, and I have to say. I think it's a matter best left to civil remedies. In other words a complaint to the restaurant manager/area manager, or if he really feels strongly about it.....a solicitors letter.

Bottom line in this incident is that a member of staff was rude to a customer. While the customer found the security guards manner to be less than acceptable. The security guard was just doing a job (although way too aggressively and with no common sense being shown). As a criminal offence it's at most Section 6 POA '94, but i would say it should be dealt with more by internal discipline than arrest and charge.

Definitely not a matter for AGS, In my mind calling AGS for this would be like calling for a shop assistant being rude while serving you.

technically its a section 3 assault ...

“harm” means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness;
fear constitutes harm ... if the OP was in fear then he was caused harm

coach23

opti76 wrote: »

technically its a section 3 assault ...

“harm” means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness;
fear constitutes harm ... if the OP was in fear then he was caused harm

No its not section 3 assault far from it at most its a public order offence to be honest its just bad manners and bad customer relations from a badly trained security guard.

the lads are right complain to the franchise about the behavior and quality of the staff and the PSA about the conduct of one of its members

the guy shouldnt have suffered this especially when hes on the job as such!

opti76

coach23 wrote: »

No its not section 3 assault far from it at most its a public order offence to be honest its just bad manners and bad customer relations from a badly trained security guard.

the lads are right complain to the franchise about the behavior and quality of the staff and the PSA about the conduct of one of its members

the guy shouldnt have suffered this especially when hes on the job as such!

if the ip makes a statement saying he was in fear then its section 3 assault ... fear is harm ..assault is any injurious force . your gonna have to trust me on it its similar to a case i have before the courts (windy cig unable to make a decision)... plus in his other thread he says the security guard grabs him rips the headphones out of his ears ...

its unacceptable behavior either way.

plus regarding a public order charge is the bathroom of a fast food outlet thats plainly advertised as for customers only a public place as defined by the public order act ... i could see a nice legal argument developing there.


3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—
[GA]

"dwelling" includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;
[GA]

"private place" means a place that is not a public place;
[GA]

"public place" includes—
[GA]

( a ) any highway,
[GA]

( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,
[GA]

( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,
[GA]

( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and


( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

members of the public aren't permitted to be in the bathroom unless there patrons, its not right for the mmber of the public to use the bathrooms in mcdonalds. there no implied permission in fact theres the opposite and there is no payment for use of teh bathrom . theres payment for the aqusition of food and beverages... and permission to use the bathrom is then granted ...

source

opti76 wrote: »

if the ip makes a statement saying he was in fear then its section 3 assault ... fear is harm ..assault is any injurious force . your gonna have to trust me on it ... plus in his other thread he says the security guard grabs him rips the headphones out of his ears ...

its unacceptable behavior either way.

plus regarding a public order charge is the bathroom of a fast food outlet thats plainly advertised as for customers only a public place as defined by the public order act ... i could see a nice legal argument developing there.


3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—
[GA]

"dwelling" includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;
[GA]

"private place" means a place that is not a public place;
[GA]

"public place" includes—
[GA]

( a ) any highway,
[GA]

( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,
[GA]

( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,
[GA]

( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and


( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

members of the public aren't permitted to be in the bathroom unless there patrons, its not right for the mmber of the public to use the bathrooms in mcdonalds. there no implied permission in fact theres the opposite and there is no payment for use of teh bathrom . theres payment for the aqusition of food and beverages... and permission to use the bathrom is then granted ...

The guy getting the headphones pulled from his ears was another poster in the same thread relaying a separate story so no sec 3 assault.

Yes it is a public place, based on the exact same subsection you highlighted in the definition. Customers are members of the public, and they have the right to use the toilet once they make a payment to the restaurant, making the entire restaurant (including the toilets) a public place. Just because you cannot walk in off the street and use the bathroom doesn't make it private property.

This has been proven in court many times, and I have personally arrested people under the public order act for disturbances in toilets on business premises, these arrests have been upheld in court without challenge from judge or solicitor, as this area is covered as a public place under the public order act.

coach23

opti76 wrote: »

if the ip makes a statement saying he was in fear then its section 3 assault ... fear is harm ..assault is any injurious force . your gonna have to trust me on it its similar to a case i have before the courts (windy cig unable to make a decision)... plus in his other thread he says the security guard grabs him rips the headphones out of his ears ...

its unacceptable behavior either way.

plus regarding a public order charge is the bathroom of a fast food outlet thats plainly advertised as for customers only a public place as defined by the public order act ... i could see a nice legal argument developing there.


3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—
[GA]

"dwelling" includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;
[GA]

"private place" means a place that is not a public place;
[GA]

"public place" includes—
[GA]

( a ) any highway,
[GA]

( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,
[GA]

( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,
[GA]

( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and


( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

members of the public aren't permitted to be in the bathroom unless there patrons, its not right for the mmber of the public to use the bathrooms in mcdonalds. there no implied permission in fact theres the opposite and there is no payment for use of teh bathrom . theres payment for the aqusition of food and beverages... and permission to use the bathrom is then granted ...

i foresee a strikeout in the future

MagicSean

foinse wrote: »

The guy getting the headphones pulled from his ears was another poster in the same thread relaying a separate story so no sec 3 assault.

Yes it is a public place, based on the exact same subsection you highlighted in the definition. Customers are members of the public, and they have the right to use the toilet once they make a payment to the restaurant, making the entire restaurant (including the toilets) a public place. Just because you cannot walk in off the street and use the bathroom doesn't make it private property.

This has been proven in court many times, and I have personally arrested people under the public order act for disturbances in toilets on business premises, these arrests have been upheld in court without challenge from judge or solicitor, as this area is covered as a public place under the public order act.

The op hadnt payed yet had he? He just went straight to the toilets.

opti76 wrote: »

if the ip makes a statement saying he was in fear then its section 3 assault ... fear is harm ..assault is any injurious force . your gonna have to trust me on it its similar to a case i have before the courts (windy cig unable to make a decision)... plus in his other thread he says the security guard grabs him rips the headphones out of his ears ...

its unacceptable behavior either way.

plus regarding a public order charge is the bathroom of a fast food outlet thats plainly advertised as for customers only a public place as defined by the public order act ... i could see a nice legal argument developing there.


3.—In this Part, except where the context otherwise requires—
[GA]

"dwelling" includes a building, vehicle or vessel ordinarily used for habitation;
[GA]

"private place" means a place that is not a public place;
[GA]

"public place" includes—
[GA]

( a ) any highway,
[GA]

( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,
[GA]

( c ) any cemetery or churchyard,
[GA]

( d ) any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise, and


( e ) any train, vessel or vehicle used for the carriage of persons for reward.

members of the public aren't permitted to be in the bathroom unless there patrons, its not right for the mmber of the public to use the bathrooms in mcdonalds. there no implied permission in fact theres the opposite and there is no payment for use of teh bathrom . theres payment for the aqusition of food and beverages... and permission to use the bathrom is then granted ...

This would never result in a conviction for a section 3 assault. Fear does not mean harm. Fear is covered under Section 2 (b) of the NFOAP

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—


(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or


(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

source

k_mac wrote: »

The op hadnt payed yet had he? He just went straight to the toilets.

Doesn't make a difference, it's still a public place as per the definition. Whether he had paid or not at that material time is irrelevant.

Reloc8

Its deffo a public place for the purposes of the public order act. Put it like this to you, you wouldn't question your power to tell someone to leave it under Section 8 would you ?

That said, I don't think its a garda matter at all, unpleasant and all as it was.

strange john

there's no way this is a section 3 assault. there's no way the "windy cig" or anyone else is going to give a direction on that. I notice it's before the courts. i can't see that being successful.

I doubt it's even a S. 2 assault and is most likely a public order offence. In all fairness, if you were called to that you'd be leaving it as a "civil remedy"

opti76

strange john wrote: »

there's no way this is a section 3 assault. there's no way the "windy cig" or anyone else is going to give a direction on that. I notice it's before the courts. i can't see that being successful.

I doubt it's even a S. 2 assault and is most likely a public order offence. In all fairness, if you were called to that you'd be leaving it as a "civil remedy"

i said my case was similar not the exact same and youd be amazed how windy he is .... he'd rather bring it to court and have a judge rule on it than mae a decision himself ....

Reloc8

Funny I've seen an awful lot of very light S. 3 assaults of late, stuff that unquestionably would have been dealt with as a S. 2 previously.

That definition of harm has a lot to answer for.
edit : not a member btw

MagicSean

Yeah I think some redefining should be done. I saw a case were a fella lost an eye being dealt with as Section 3.