Accosted by Security Guard M&S - what rights?

melrose5

Hi,

My mum (78 yrs old) was in M&S before Christmas browsing through a clothes rail when a security guard came from behind her and placed his hand on her shoulder saying that "Im from M&S security, whats in your bag" - she had an empty M&S bag on the ground beside her. She was totally shocked, he then asked where her handbag was and in her numbness; she opened her jacket to show him where her wallet was. He marched off towards the main door - she then went over to him & asked why he had done that, he narkily said that there was pickpockets in the store. She went downstairs and found he was hanging around there glaring at her. She left the store and hasnt been back to M&S since (having being a regular customer for a number of years).

I am about to write to M&S now to complain and having looked through other blogs am getting mad thinking that he acted out of his remit and should never have touched her or approached her from behind without her knowledge - scaring her witless.

Any advice on what powers he actually has and any hints/tips for complaint letter.

Many thanks!

Paulw

melrose5 wrote: »

Any advice on what powers he actually has and any hints/tips for complaint letter.

He has no more power than you or I.

He placed his hand on her shoulder - you could claim assault.
He asked to look inside her bag and see her purse - she should have said no, and walked away.

There is no obligation to answer any of his questions or deal with him in any way.

MagicSean

You would prefer he had come out of the clothes rack in front of her? I think that would probably have scared her more. The only power he has is to arrest her if she has committed a theft and hand her over to the Gardaí. She didn't have to show him what was in the bag or tell him where her purse was.

Sounds like he had a ****ty attitude and that's worth complaining about.

MagicSean

Paulw wrote: »

He placed his hand on her shoulder - you could claim assault.

Why stop there? Why not claim attempted murder?

tricky D

There's some quite strict criteria that security are supposed to use according to a friend who does this work in another well known dept store. It goes something like, they have to observe you concealing the item, making no attempt to pay and attempting to leave the premises. Anything else puts them at risk of prosecution and/or a judge dismissing. The pickpockets line is dubious - why ask to see inside the bag? - and even if there is an item in the bag, intention to steal is not established. I'd complain.

mathepac

MagicSean wrote: »

Why stop there? Why not claim attempted murder?

The reason for not claiming attempted murder is that apparently that did not happen, whereas the common assault apparently did. This ego-tripping power-hungry numbskull of a bully frightened an elderly lady going about her business lawfully and broke the law.

I wonder would you be so flippant if it was your mother.

OP the entire event should be on the CCTV in the shop. I suggest you act before it gets erased. Report the yobbo to the Guards for assault and have them request the CCTV from the shop.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

Why stop there? Why not claim attempted murder?

On the face of it it is a section 2 assault


Assault.

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,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

The things the op can do if she wishes

1 complain to M&S
2 make complaint to AGS
3 sue M&S for trespass on the person and if people witnessed the exchange sue as well for defamation

I am not advising that any of the above would work, as there is not enough information.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

On the face of it it is a section 2 assault


Assault.

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,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

The things the op can do if she wishes

1 complain to M&S
2 make complaint to AGS
3 sue M&S for trespass on the person and if people witnessed the exchange sue as well for defamation

I am not advising that any of the above would work, as there is not enough information.

You've just decided to ignore subsection 3 then?

MagicSean

mathepac wrote: »

The reason for not claiming attempted murder is that apparently that did not happen, whereas the common assault apparently did. This ego-tripping power-hungry numbskull of a bully frightened an elderly lady going about her business lawfully and broke the law.

I wonder would you be so flippant if it was your mother.

OP the entire event should be on the CCTV in the shop. I suggest you act before it gets erased. Report the yobbo to the Guards for assault and have them request the CCTV from the shop.

I've already said he had a terrible attitutde and should be reported for it but to claim that was an assault is ridiculous.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

You've just decided to ignore subsection 3 then?

No I did not lets read it again

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

So first of all the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, well we can accept that it did not cause injury then the and comes in "and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person." I for one with a 79 year old mother does not believe it is in fact acceptable to put your Han on her shoulder, in fact for some people it could cause great distress and further problems.

So it is possible that any defence granted in sub section 3 may not work as the second part of the test, I think it is not acceptable to put your hand on a elderly person in that way.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

I've already said he had a terrible attitutde and should be reported for it but to claim that was an assault is ridiculous.

Neither you nor I was there, how can you be sure it was not an assault, I can not say for certain it was. I just set out the possible remedies. With out speaking to the OP's mother in detail and reviewing any other evidence no person can say for certain what it was.

If the OP and her mother decide it was an assault they can inform AGS, who will then make a decision based on all the evidence. Which I accept may very well be that in this area the security guard has nothing to answer for.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

No I did not lets read it again

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

So first of all the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, well we can accept that it did not cause injury then the and comes in "and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person." I for one with a 79 year old mother does not believe it is in fact acceptable to put your Han on her shoulder, in fact for some people it could cause great distress and further problems.

So it is possible that any defence granted in sub section 3 may not work as the second part of the test, I think it is not acceptable to put your hand on a elderly person in that way.

The ops description clearly indicated that the hand was placed on her shoulder to get her attention, a practice which is as commonplace as it is acceptable. Or do you think it could have been for another purpose.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

The ops description clearly indicated that the hand was placed on her shoulder to get her attention, a practice which is as commonplace as it is acceptable. Or do you think it could have been for another purpose.

It does not have to be for other purposes. Section 2 says touch someone that's assault. Except where subsection 3 gives a defence. There are 2 elements to that defence it did not or was not to cause injury, and the person believed the other person would have no problem with it. Then the only question is was it reasonable to believe a 78 year old women would have no problem with it. You may think it is reasonable to think so, on the other hand I don't think it is reasonable.

Also remember to be guilty of section 2 you don't even have to make contact,

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

Just saying I'm going to thump you may be enough.

Also I said very clearly in my first post "I am not advising that any of the above would work, as there is not enough information." I made it clear what all the options are, not all that would work.

mathepac

MagicSean wrote: »

The ops description clearly indicated that the hand was placed on her shoulder to get her attention, a practice which is as commonplace as it is acceptable. ...

melrose5 wrote: »

... a security guard came from behind her and placed his hand on her shoulder saying that "Im from M&S security, whats in your bag" - ...

No it sounds like a bully simulating an arrest in order to frighten OP's mother. The commonplace way to get someone's attention is to approach them from the front and say something like "Excuse me, I'm from XXX security, could I have a word with you please?"

Corruptable

I must row in with ResearchWill on that point, as depending on the circumstances it could cause fear in an elderly person. If not done intentionally, he was certainly reckless. From my reading of the OP's post, at the time the hand was placed on her shoulder she wasn't aware who the person was.

From the OP's post, no words were used which could have negated the action (Tubberville v Savage) . Coffey (ELT Criminal Law, p 242) notes that sub-sec 3 would include contact sports, jostling in a queue, etc.

That said, I think any prosecution for sec 2 assault would be highly unlikely to succeed, given there is a subjective element of offence (i.e: did the person making contact believe it would cause fear).

MagicSean

mathepac wrote: »

No it sounds like a bully simulating an arrest in order to frighten OP's mother. The commonplace way to get someone's attention is to approach them from the front and say something like "Excuse me, I'm from XXX security, could I have a word with you please?"

So you also think he should have come out of the clothes rack?

MagicSean

Corruptable wrote: »

I must row in with ResearchWill on that point, as depending on the circumstances it could cause fear in an elderly person. If not done intentionally, he was certainly reckless. From my reading of the OP's post, at the time the hand was placed on her shoulder she wasn't aware who the person was.

From the OP's post, no words were used which could have negated the action (Tubberville v Savage) . Coffey (ELT Criminal Law, p 242) notes that sub-sec 3 would include contact sports, jostling in a queue, etc.

That said, I think any prosecution for sec 2 assault would be highly unlikely to succeed, given there is a subjective element of offence (i.e: did the person making contact believe it would cause fear).

No words? Other than identifying himself as a member of security?

Corruptable

MagicSean wrote: »

No words? Other than identifying himself as a member of security?

It would depend on the time frame between when he put the hand and then identified himself. However, on second reading of the OP's post he may have identified himself at the same time, in which case, it would negate it.

I don't think anyone is contending here that there should be a prosecution for assault but that there is a prima facie case that could be made in support of it, although other than a purely academic argument, in my view it has no real basis in reality, and in reality, the prosecution would fail and it would be a waste of time.

I don't feel it's actionable in either criminal or tort, so maybe it was a poor decision on the part of the security guard and the way he conducted himself wasn't the best, but there's not really a legal issue there.

mathepac

MagicSean wrote: »

So you also think he should have come out of the clothes rack?

No you seem to be the only one positing ludicrous scenarios without regard for the distress and shock suffered by an elderly woman.

Ken.

Wasn't their a case recently about a security guard doing something similar and the guard got done under false imprisonment laws.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0015.html
15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

(a) takes or detains, or

(b) causes to be taken or detained, or

(c) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,

another without that other's consent.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person acts without the consent of another if the person obtains the other's consent by force or threat of force, or by deception causing the other to believe that he or she is under legal compulsion to consent.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life

MagicSean

mathepac wrote: »

No you seem to be the only one positing ludicrous scenarios without regard for the distress and shock suffered by an elderly woman.

If someone is facing a clothes rack how exactly would you approach them from the front then?

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

If someone is facing a clothes rack how exactly would you approach them from the front then?

He could have waited until she turned around, at 78 don't think she was going to make a run for it.

blueythebear

ResearchWill wrote: »

He could have waited until she turned around, at 78 don't think she was going to make a run for it.

As has been said before, this is not necessarily a legal issue, more a training issue with the Security Guard, who should not have really approached her at all in the scenario as set out. Academically, there is the potential for criminal and civil liability, but realistically it's not going to happen.

However, if I was this woman, I'd still see a solicitor to write to them seeking the CCTV and to threaten court action as they'll probably offer something!

melrose5

Hi All,

Many thanks for your responses. I didnt believe there was a strong legal case and indeed wouldnt want to put my mam through any further distress. In my letter to M&S though I wanted to highlight the "illegality", if you like, of how the security guard acted as well as the distress caused.

Thanks

Marcusm

I think you would be hard pushed to sustain a defence that an elderly person would regard being touched on the shoulder from behind as acceptable. Even as a much younger and more able person, I would find it highly unacceptable. There have been a number of similar posts over the past year or so and there seems to be a section of boardsies who find this commonplace and assert that arguments to the contrary are legalistic or that the person lives in a cotton wrapped bubble. Neither is true in my opinion; I do not believe that being touched by a stranger from behind is anything other than an assault. The only occasion of which I would find t remotely excusable woud be in circumstances where it was necessary to avoid immediate harm.

BornToKill

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you would be hard pushed to sustain a defence that an elderly person would regard being touched on the shoulder from behind as acceptable. Even as a much younger and more able person, I would find it highly unacceptable. There have been a number of similar posts over the past year or so and there seems to be a section of boardsies who find this commonplace and assert that arguments to the contrary are legalistic or that the person lives in a cotton wrapped bubble. Neither is true in my opinion; I do not believe that being touched by a stranger from behind is anything other than an assault. The only occasion of which I would find t remotely excusable woud be in circumstances where it was necessary to avoid immediate harm.

That's fair enough but the test is not whether the direct force (the touch) was acceptable to the person touched, it is that 'the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person'.

MagicSean

blueythebear wrote: »

As has been said before, this is not necessarily a legal issue, more a training issue with the Security Guard, who should not have really approached her at all in the scenario as set out. Academically, there is the potential for criminal and civil liability, but realistically it's not going to happen.

However, if I was this woman, I'd still see a solicitor to write to them seeking the CCTV and to threaten court action as they'll probably offer something!

You mean blackmail them?

MagicSean

melrose5 wrote: »

Hi All,

Many thanks for your responses. I didnt believe there was a strong legal case and indeed wouldnt want to put my mam through any further distress. In my letter to M&S though I wanted to highlight the "illegality", if you like, of how the security guard acted as well as the distress caused.

Thanks

He did not act illegally. He acted reprehensibly by taking advantage of someone's ignorance of their rights, an elderly lady at that.

Zambia

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you would be hard pushed to sustain a defence that an elderly person would regard being touched on the shoulder from behind as acceptable. Even as a much younger and more able person, I would find it highly unacceptable. There have been a number of similar posts over the past year or so and there seems to be a section of boardsies who find this commonplace and assert that arguments to the contrary are legalistic or that the person lives in a cotton wrapped bubble. Neither is true in my opinion; I do not believe that being touched by a stranger from behind is anything other than an assault. The only occasion of which I would find t remotely excusable woud be in circumstances where it was necessary to avoid immediate harm.

If the bold section was the case then right now all over Dublin there is a Mass outbreak of assault in pubs, trams, Buses etc.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

It matters not if you think its Unacceptable the person doing it has the belief they are acting properly.

The bloke is a muppet but he has not committed a crime.

drkpower

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you would be hard pushed to sustain a defence that an elderly person would regard being touched on the shoulder from behind as acceptable. Even as a much younger and more able person, I would find it highly unacceptable. There have been a number of similar posts over the past year or so and there seems to be a section of boardsies who find this commonplace and assert that arguments to the contrary are legalistic or that the person lives in a cotton wrapped bubble. Neither is true in my opinion; I do not believe that being touched by a stranger from behind is anything other than an assault. The only occasion of which I would find t remotely excusable woud be in circumstances where it was necessary to avoid immediate harm.

Wow; a misunderstanding of the specific law, law generally and of reality, all wrapped up into one short post!

bobmalooka

Zambia wrote: »

If the bold section was the case then right now all over Dublin there is a Mass outbreak of assault in pubs, trams, Buses etc.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

It matters not if you think its Unacceptable the person doing it has the belief they are acting properly.

The bloke is a muppet but he has not committed a crime.

the security guard has to have the relevant course completed to work in security. If the security guard has indeed completed the course he will be aware that he is not allowed to touch a member of the public in the store as it can be prosecuted as false imprisonment/assault.

If he completed the course the defendant does know this action to be unacceptable.

Marcusm

BornToKill wrote: »

That's fair enough but the test is not whether the direct force (the touch) was acceptable to the person touched, it is that 'the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person'.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. In summary, I do not believe that the public at large would regard it as acceptable behaviour and thus I do not believe that the security guard should be capable of sustaining a defence that he reasonably believed it would be acceptable to the other person. Any assertion of his belief would have to be tested as i doubt he will have given it any consideration.

He acted aggressively (touching an elderly person without warning and from behind) and is thus either innately callous or did not consider the acceptability of his actions. I do not therefore see that he could defend his actions under subsection 3.

blueythebear

MagicSean wrote: »

You mean blackmail them?

How is that blackmail now? A letter requesting CCTV footage and an O'Byrne letter calling on them to admit liability for personal injuries? Standard in any PI proceedings.

Marcusm

drkpower wrote: »

Wow; a misunderstanding of the specific law, law generally and of reality, all wrapped up into one short post!

I think that's a bit shortsighted; the exclusion requires three factors to apply:

No harm or not intended to cause harm
Acceptable in the ordinary course of daily life
Hs belief that acceptable

My focus is principally on the second of these; I do not believe that the intentional touching of somebody from behind in a shop would be considered acceptable by persons generally in daily life. Being accidentally jostled on a bus/tramor intentionally tapped on the shoulder in a crowded bar is not the same as approaching someone (especially an elderly person) from behind when in a shop.

drkpower

Marcusm wrote: »

I think that's a bit shortsighted; the exclusion requires three factors to apply:

No harm or not intended to cause harm
Acceptable in the ordinary course of daily life
Hs belief that acceptable

My focus is principally on the second of these; I do not believe that the intentional touching of somebody from behind in a shop would be considered acceptable by persons generally in daily life. Being accidentally jostled on a bus/tramor intentionally tapped on the shoulder in a crowded bar is not the same as approaching someone (especially an elderly person) from behind when in a shop.

To be honest, that is utter nonsense, at least to anyone living in reality-land.

In a variety of social and professional contexts, I have approached and been approached/greeted by strangers and non-strangers with a tap on the shoulder, a palm of the hand on the upper back, a touch on the arm. Noone thought it was unacceptable; noone cried assault.

The description given by the OP is of a security guard, in the course of his duty, attempting to attract the attention of a woman to ask her a question in the course of his duty as a security guard, with the most benign level of physical contact reasonably possible to achieve that. What I would say is that he should have - and probably did - say 'excuse me' once or twice before physically approaching her.

BrianD

melrose5 wrote: »

Hi,

My mum (78 yrs old) was in M&S before Christmas browsing through a clothes rail when a security guard came from behind her and placed his hand on her shoulder saying that "Im from M&S security, whats in your bag" - she had an empty M&S bag on the ground beside her. She was totally shocked, he then asked where her handbag was and in her numbness; she opened her jacket to show him where her wallet was. He marched off towards the main door - she then went over to him & asked why he had done that, he narkily said that there was pickpockets in the store. She went downstairs and found he was hanging around there glaring at her. She left the store and hasnt been back to M&S since (having being a regular customer for a number of years).

I am about to write to M&S now to complain and having looked through other blogs am getting mad thinking that he acted out of his remit and should never have touched her or approached her from behind without her knowledge - scaring her witless.

Any advice on what powers he actually has and any hints/tips for complaint letter.

Many thanks!

Placing a hand on your shoulder is not an assault.

Write a letter to M&S. I'd suggest that you just move on.

melrose5

Thank you all for your advice and support in my query.

Just to clarify - the security guard approached from behind placed a hand on her shoulder whilst saying loudly: "I am an M&S security guard". I think anyone would be started. To also clarify to drkpower - he was not polite, never said excuse me.... etc. but was rather snotty about the whole affair.

Anyway, the letter has been sent and I will update with any response which may be of use to anyone else who may have this unfortunate experience.

BornToKill

Marcusm wrote: »

I think that's a bit shortsighted; the exclusion requires three factors to apply:

No harm or not intended to cause harm
Acceptable in the ordinary course of daily life
Hs belief that acceptable

My focus is principally on the second of these; I do not believe that the intentional touching of somebody from behind in a shop would be considered acceptable by persons generally in daily life. Being accidentally jostled on a bus/tramor intentionally tapped on the shoulder in a crowded bar is not the same as approaching someone (especially an elderly person) from behind when in a shop.

It's not that the defendant believes it to be acceptable, it's that he does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

This is in addition - 'and' - to the requirement that the force 'is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life'.

It is not relevant what you believe or do not believe as to the acceptability of touching someone on the shoulder. The court will apply an objective test as to what would be considered generally acceptable. While you consider that to intentionally touch someone on the shoulder in a shop is unacceptable and should constitute assault, what if someone walking along heedlessly drops a fiver or a ticket? Should the kindly stranger who, attempting to help them, gives them a little tip to draw their attention to the lost item be up on charges of assault?

melrose5

Thanks folks.

Finally got a response; with a very kind offer of tea & sympathy - yes!

Apparently security were looking after shoppers interests....

pm me for further details....

Another long standing customer off their list of "customers"....:mad:

deadwood

ResearchWill wrote: »

Then the only question is was it reasonable to believe a 78 year old women would have no problem with it. You may think it is reasonable to think so, on the other hand I don't think it is reasonable.
.

Would it be reasonable to place his hand on her shoulder if he was saying, e.g. "Excuse me, miss, you dropped your purse".

An assault might be a bit of a stretch.

The search (such as it was) might raise questions though, even with her implied consent. I pity the fool that tries to search my mother!

deadwood

melrose5 wrote: »

Thanks folks.

Finally got a response; with a very kind offer of tea & sympathy - yes!

Apparently security were looking after shoppers interests....

pm me for further details....

Another long standing customer off their list of "customers"....:mad:

Seems like a reasonable response to a reasonable complaint.

Legal stuff aside, his attitude seemed wrong, but reading between the lines of the original post and o.p.'s last one, I suspect it may have boiled down to a misguided attempt by the security guard at shock-tactic crime prevention. His delivery mightn't have been as polished as we would expect from the legal eaglets on boards.ie.

He wasn't just any security guard.
He was.....an M&S security guard.

mathepac

deadwood wrote: »

...
He wasn't just any security guard.
He was.....an M&S security guard.

May be more accurately:

He wasn't just any security guard.
He was.....an untrained, unsupervised and possibly even unlicensed bully

Tom Young

Read McCormack v Olsthoorn: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/431.html. A tap is enough - Civil Assault, Battery, possibly technical false imprisonment and maybe not Defamation due to qualified privilege.

MagicSean

Tom Young wrote: »

Read McCormack v Olsthoorn: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/431.html. A tap is enough - Civil Assault, Battery, possibly technical false imprisonment and maybe not Defamation due to qualified privilege.

"On the defendant's account it is clear that no actionable wrong has been committed: what he said was not defamatory and he did not have physical contact with the plaintiff at all except to tap him on the shoulder, which is quite legitimate."

It would appear that the case you stated would indicate that a tap is not enough. Or have I missed something?

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

"On the defendant's account it is clear that no actionable wrong has been committed: what he said was not defamatory and he did not have physical contact with the plaintiff at all except to tap him on the shoulder, which is quite legitimate."

It would appear that the case you stated would indicate that a tap is not enough. Or have I missed something?

McCormack, is a Circuit Court Appeal, and from what I have seen in relation to quilified Privillage, is not really being followed in practice, depending on the Judge. BTW my own opinion of the decision is that it is a good decision and Hardiman J. is as you know a Supreme Court judge. But I have seen cases on all fours in relation the privilage issue in the circuit court going against the McCormack decision. F

Tom Young

See very last line re. award.

And:
In relation to the balance of the claims, I accept that the plaintiff was, albeit very briefly, technically assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The latter simply means that he was (briefly) deprived of his liberty to go where he wanted. I am satisfied that there was no real violence in the assault which I believe consisted of grabbing the plaintiff by the arm. I believe that the episode lasted, if only by five or ten seconds, longer than the defendant now recalls and that there was some element of propulsion towards the shop. Any level of force whatever was quite unnecessary in respect of a man who, even if his utter respectability was unknown to the defendant, cannot have presented as being a risk of violence or of escape. No physical harm was done but the plaintiff was technically assaulted, briefly deprived of his liberty and as a result of this was very understandably upset distressed and shocked. This is a most unfortunate thing to happen to anyone, and particularly to a man of advancing years. But it was by no means a very grave episode.

Tom Young

It is. I agree, current Circuit mix is a bit unpredictable. Mostly in bag and tags, QP is upheld and awards flow for battery and false imprisonment. More frequently, and on facts I'd agree.

ryaner2k14

I work in security myself and what that guy did was illegal in accordance with the private security act 2007 & 2011
A security Guard must observe and have actual proof that the item itself has not the left the persons possesion another thing he can not accuse her of theft until she.has passed the point of sale. which basically means has walked out the door.. that was completely against the law and.you should report him to the Private Security Authority who licence all security staff in Ireland.

Yawns

2 and a half years ago. I think they've moved on. Very observant for a security guard tho!

Mary63

My friends daughter was stopped by a security man in a store in Stillorgan.her daughter was seventeen.
My friend contacted the store owner who agreed to meet my friend and her daughter to discuss the incident,I think the security Guard had stopped the young girl and asked to examine her bag,the young girl was entirely innocent.
The store owner agreed to pay the young girl compensation of 1000 euros for the distress caused,she was mortified to be stopped.

Pro Hoc Vice

Mary63 wrote: »

My friends daughter was stopped by a security man in a store in Stillorgan.her daughter was seventeen.
My friend contacted the store owner who agreed to meet my friend and her daughter to discuss the incident,I think the security Guard had stopped the young girl and asked to examine her bag,the young girl was entirely innocent.
The store owner agreed to pay the young girl compensation of 1000 euros for the distress caused,she was mortified to be stopped.

I assume that award was ruled by a judge as the person was a minor.