Citizens arrest

mikemac1

Was standing outside Supervalu on Aston Quay in Dublin. A young lad was refused entry by the security guard, must be barred I suppose.

He hung around the front of the shop messing with the lotto stand and faking to throw a bottle of lucozade into the shop. This went on a few minutes.

Eventually he fired the bottle into the shop and ran across the road. The taxi men who watched it all refused to take him. The security guard and a well built shop assistant crossed the road, grabbed him and marched him into the back of the shop, an office I suppose to await the gardai

The lad deserve no sympathy, I'll delighted he didn't get away with it. My question is will the Supervalu staff get nailed by a clever solicitor?They didn't grab him in the shop, it across the road so entirely a public place. Can security staff do this if you are off their premises?

kravmaga

Citizens arrest for what , throwing a plastic bottle into a shop is not a criminal offence? Did he take the bottle from the shop without paying then throw in back in??

Pat Mustard

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0014/sec0004.html

If the boy committed an arrestable offence, he could be arrested by any person.

I don't know whether it was a glass bottle that the boy threw or what, but it's not clear to me that he committed an arrestable offence.

If he didn't commit an arrestable offence, the person who apprehended him had no right to arrest him.

Ken.

I thought a person had to be guilty of an offence that carried a sentence of 5 years for a citizen to be able to do a citizens arrest.

Pat Mustard

Section 2:

“arrestable offence” means an offence for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or by a more severe penalty and includes an attempt to commit any such offence;

...__...

depends how a judge will see that as it could be criminal damage or public order either way the staff were "having a go" in my opinion. I have a few friends who are security and i abhorr the way they say they arrested someone. they think theyhave the power of arrest like the gardai.

Zambia

Maybe in a few days you might see his face on missing posters.

You shouldn't mess with people to much you never know the day their having.

I would rather be able to walk than claim compo for not being able to.

In answer to your question it's safe to say the arrest can happen anywhere, save a foreign embassy. I have known security to arrest people that committed offences on Grafton Street as far away as O'Connell street.

Gatling

Zambia wrote: »

In answer to your question it's safe to say the arrest can happen anywhere, save a foreign embassy. I have known security to arrest people that committed offences on Grafton Street as far away as O'Connell street.

Pretty regular occurrence

Big Nasty

...__... wrote: »

depends how a judge will see that as it could be criminal damage or public order either way the staff were "having a go" in my opinion. I have a few friends who are security and i abhorr the way they say they arrested someone. they think theyhave the power of arrest like the gardai.

How else would you like them to describe it?

Gatling

Big Nasty wrote: »

How else would you like them to describe it?

We don't have the power to arrest ( as we never say your under arrest) we detain until till the gardai arrive

Bepolite

Gatling wrote: »

We don't have the power to arrest ( as we never say your under arrest) we detain until till the gardai arrive

I'm not exactly sure what you difference you think that's going to make. If you arrest someone for an arrestable offence you've a defence. If you detain someone for a non-arrestable offence it's cher-ching time for the 'victim'.

I don't condone the current system. There are far to many ways to get away with being anti-social, and far too many pit-falls for those who seek to hold people accountable for their actions.

Peregrinus

Gatling wrote: »

We don't have the power to arrest ( as we never say your under arrest) we detain until till the gardai arrive

That's an arrest.

Gatling

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure what you difference you think that's going to make. If you arrest someone for an arrestable offence you've a defence. If you detain someone for a non-arrestable offence it's cher-ching time for the 'victim'.

I don't condone the current system. There are far to many ways to get away with being anti-social, and far too many pit-falls for those who seek to hold people accountable for their actions.

On the situation posted above i personally wouldn't have gone after the lad for throwing a plastic bottle and any of the staff ive trained wouldn't have ,
Loss prevention and keeping staff safe ,
Id be more interested to find out if the Gardai were actually called or was this chap giving a quite word ,
To me this is a prime example of what not to do

kjbsrah1

ken wrote: »

I thought a person had to be guilty of an offence that carried a sentence of 5 years for a citizen to be able to do a citizens arrest.

I don't know that members of the public would necessarily know what the penalty for different offences would be... Or if something is an offence or not. Sometimes we are sure 'there has to be a law against that' and find that there isn't, while other times we break the law unknowingly...

Big Nasty

Gatling wrote: »

We don't have the power to arrest ( as we never say your under arrest) we detain until till the gardai arrive

Same thing really.

You could always say Stop! (Not) In the name of the law.

Peregrinus

kjbsrah1 wrote: »

I don't know that members of the public would necessarily know what the penalty for different offences would be... Or if something is an offence or not. Sometimes we are sure 'there has to be a law against that' and find that there isn't, while other times we break the law unknowingly...

Which is why effecting an arrest is an extremely risky thing to do if you don't know what you're at.

Having said that, if someone is in the security/bouncer business, it's not unreasonable to expect them to have the training to recognise the major arrestable offences, so that they will know what they're at.

Little CuChulainn

Sounds like the lad attempted to commit Criminal Damage, an arrestable offence, and leave before Gardaí arrived. Seems to fall under the rules for a citizens arrest.

djimi

The Mustard wrote: »

Section 2:

Pretty hard thing to enforce though surely? Im not a legal expert; I have no idea what offense carries what punishment.

I presume it exists to stop people from carrying out citizen arrests for stupid things like littering, but what about more serious offenses?

Zambia

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Sounds like the lad attempted to commit Criminal Damage, an arrestable offence, and leave before Gardaí arrived. Seems to fall under the rules for a citizens arrest.

While this is correct, the flip side is while the store guard is holding num nuts the store is wide open. Just because you can arrest does not mean you should.

Peregrinus

djimi wrote: »

Pretty hard thing to enforce though surely? Im not a legal expert; I have no idea what offense carries what punishment.

I presume it exists to stop people from carrying out citizen arrests for stupid things like littering, but what about more serious offenses?

If you've no idea what offence carries what punishment, then don't make a citizens arrest.

This is not a bug; it's a feature. The general policy is not to encourage have-a-go heroes and citizen vigilantes, even - perhaps especially - for "more serious offences"; such things rarely work out well.

The people who might reasonably be in the way of making arrests - security guards, bouncers, etc - ought to be trained and prepared for the role, and it's not unreasonable to expect their training to include a knowledge of the arrestable offences they might expect to encounter in their roles.

Little CuChulainn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Sounds like the lad attempted to commit Criminal Damage, an arrestable offence, and leave before Gardaí arrived. Seems to fall under the rules for a citizens arrest.

While it's true that an attempt to commit an arrestable offence, is an arrestable offence, I was always of the belief that a crime had to have either been committed or that it was in the middle of being committed, for anyone to arrest an offender.
There is a distinction in the act between what anyone can arrest for, and what gardai can arrest for.

I'd imagine in this case, that young lad was not arrested or handed over to gardai. Probably got a 'talking to'
Leaving themselves wide open here I'd say.

Little CuChulainn

bubblypop wrote: »

While it's true that an attempt to commit an arrestable offence, is an arrestable offence, I was always of the belief that a crime had to have either been committed or that it was in the middle of being committed, for anyone to arrest an offender.
There is a distinction in the act between what anyone can arrest for, and what gardai can arrest for.

I'd imagine in this case, that young lad was not arrested or handed over to gardai. Probably got a 'talking to'
Leaving themselves wide open here I'd say.

An arrestable offence is an offence that carries five years or an attempt to commit an offence that carries five years. Look at them as two separate things. Either one is an arrestable offence. You cannot really attempt to commit an arrestable offence because the term itself includes attempts. For example, if you attempt to commit criminal damage you are committing an arrestable offence.

Pat Mustard

djimi wrote: »

I presume it exists to stop people from carrying out citizen arrests for stupid things like littering, but what about more serious offenses?

No, the power of arrest exists in relation to arrestable offences, which are more serious offences. It does not exist in relation to less serious offences.

I'll put it to you this way: if I catch a burglar in my house, I will hold onto him until the guards arrive. If bouncers catch a guy who assaulted somebody in a nightclub, they might do the same thing. If a security guard is certain that he has caught somebody in the act of stealing, he might also do the same thing.

If I collar some young fella for littering and hold onto him, I can expect to get in trouble, myself.

djimi

The Mustard wrote: »

No, the power of arrest exists in relation to arrestable offences, which are more serious offences. It does not exist in relation to less serious offences.

I'll put it to you this way: if I catch a burglar in my house, I will hold onto him until the guards arrive. If bouncers catch a guy who assaulted somebody in a nightclub, they might do the same thing. If a security guard is certain that he has caught somebody in the act of stealing, he might also do the same thing.

If I collar some young fella for littering and hold onto him, I can expect to get in trouble, myself.

This is where my query about the "five year sentence" offenses comes into play. I know littering, shoplifting etc is not going to carry a five year sentence. However, if someone holds up my shop with a knife for example, can I then enforce a citizens arrenst? Im not a legal expert; I have no clue what sentence that carries. I would hope its more than 5 years but I suspect that its probabyl not for a first offense.

djimi

djimi wrote: »

This is where my query about the "five year sentence" offenses comes into play. I know littering, shoplifting etc is not going to carry a five year sentence. However, if someone holds up my shop with a knife for example, can I then enforce a citizens arrenst? Im not a legal expert; I have no clue what sentence that carries. I would hope its more than 5 years but I suspect that its probabyl not for a first offense.

Shoplifting is an arrestable offence

Pat Mustard

djimi wrote: »

This is where my query about the "five year sentence" offenses comes into play. I know littering, shoplifting etc is not going to carry a five year sentence. However, if someone holds up my shop with a knife for example, can I then enforce a citizens arrenst? Im not a legal expert; I have no clue what sentence that carries. I would hope its more than 5 years but I suspect that its probabyl not for a first offense.

That's why Peregrinus pointed out that it is a risky business for non-Gardai to attempt to arrest people, unless they know exactly what they are doing.

Robbery

14.—(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he or she steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

(2) A person guilty of robbery is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Burglary

Potential sentence for shoplifting (theft):

(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

conorh91

Bepolite wrote: »

The lad deserve no sympathy, I'll delighted he didn't get away with it. My question is will the Supervalu staff get nailed by a clever solicitor?They didn't grab him in the shop, it across the road so entirely a public place. Can security staff do this if you are off their premises?

The Criminal Law Act 1997 creates two discrete classes of arrest. The first is power of arrest during the reasonably suspected commission of an arrestable offence; the second creates a power of arrest over a person who is reasonably suspected of having committed a offence, after the offence has clearly been committed. The second category appears to leave no room for doubt over whether an arrestable offence has been committed.

Almost all of the offences of any gravity are arrestable offences, but many of the offences which might be located to fit the above facts are not arrestable.

So the solicitor has to start at the tallest barrier to prosecution, and it's a fairly black and white question: Has an arrestable offence occurred?

Criminal Trespass to a building is not an arrestable offence.

Criminal Damage is an arrestable offense, but nothing you have said indicates criminal damage. I assume if the man threw a glass bottle, or a bottle that had inside a liquid that spilled on the floor, you would have mentioned this. Personally, I find it difficult to extract an arrestable offence from the OP.

That's the first problem.

Even if a an arrestable offence has occurred, the next question is whether the Security Guard can prove reasonable cause to suspect the man he detained as having committed that arrestable offence.

The detained man's (sufficiently interested, presumably underemployed) solicitor would look to the CCTV, distinguishing features and clothing of the detained man, and so on, and attempt to dismantle any reasonable cause for suspecting the detained man.

If reasonable cause is nevertheless made out, the next matter for consideration is whether the Security Guard had reasonable cause to suspect that the detained man was avoiding arrest. If the preceding issues have been successfully dealt with, then this question is relatively straightforward, since the man in question fled the scene. Nevertheless, factors like desirability, expedience or convenience are not sufficient.

Based on the facts that you have outlined, if I were in a position of a security guard, I wouldn't have done what you have described.

False Imprisonment is a criminal offence, and it is not necessarily an "intentional" offence, i.e. it can be recklessness. There is no "reasonable excuse" provision.

It's perhaps of interest that false imprisonment is an arrestable offence. This raises the improbable but Pythonesque scenario of a gurrier being arrested by a Supermacs security guard, only for the Supermacs security guard to be arrested in turn by the gurrier.

Needless to say there is also the possibility of liability in tort.

In short, for cases like the OP, just don't risk it. Or if you do, have a brass neck and deep pockets.

Little CuChulainn

conorh91 wrote: »

Criminal Damage is an arrestable offense, but nothing you have said indicates criminal damage. I assume if the man threw a glass bottle, or a bottle that had inside a liquid that spilled on the floor, you would have mentioned this. Personally, I find it difficult to extract an arrestable offence from the OP.

An attempt to commit the offence of criminal damage is also an arrestable offence.

conorh91

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

An attempt to commit the offence of criminal damage is also an arrestable offence.

Indeed, and equally unlikely.

I'd await clarification from the OP, but unless it was a glass bottle, or caused damage in the course of a spillage, no it's just a non-starter.

How can you possibly intend criminal damage by pegging a plastic bottle on a floor, especially an empty one?

Little CuChulainn

conorh91 wrote: »

Indeed, and equally unlikely.

I'd await clarification from the OP, but unless it was a glass bottle, or caused damage in the course of a spillage, no it's just a non-starter.

How can you possibly intend criminal damage by pegging a plastic bottle on a floor, especially an empty one?

You're kinda changing the story yourself there. He didn't say threw an empty bottle on the floor, he said threw a bottle into the shop. Even if it didn't cause damage or he just fired it randomly, he was reckless as to whether damage would be caused, which again would fall under an attempt to commit criminal damage.

Bepolite

conorh91 wrote: »

The Criminal Law Act 1997 creates two discrete classes of arrest. The first is power of arrest during the reasonably suspected commission of an arrestable offence; the second creates a power of arrest over a person who is reasonably suspected of having committed a offence, after the offence has clearly been committed. The second category appears to leave no room for doubt over whether an arrestable offence has been committed.

Almost all of the offences of any gravity are arrestable offences, but many of the offences which might be located to fit the above facts are not arrestable.

So the solicitor has to start at the tallest barrier to prosecution, and it's a fairly black and white question: Has an arrestable offence occurred?

Criminal Trespass to a building is not an arrestable offence.

Criminal Damage is an arrestable offense, but nothing you have said indicates criminal damage. I assume if the man threw a glass bottle, or a bottle that had inside a liquid that spilled on the floor, you would have mentioned this. Personally, I find it difficult to extract an arrestable offence from the OP.

That's the first problem.

Even if a an arrestable offence has occurred, the next question is whether the Security Guard can prove reasonable cause to suspect the man he detained as having committed that arrestable offence.

The detained man's (sufficiently interested, presumably underemployed) solicitor would look to the CCTV, distinguishing features and clothing of the detained man, and so on, and attempt to dismantle any reasonable cause for suspecting the detained man.

If reasonable cause is nevertheless made out, the next matter for consideration is whether the Security Guard had reasonable cause to suspect that the detained man was avoiding arrest. If the preceding issues have been successfully dealt with, then this question is relatively straightforward, since the man in question fled the scene. Nevertheless, factors like desirability, expedience or convenience are not sufficient.

Based on the facts that you have outlined, if I were in a position of a security guard, I wouldn't have done what you have described.

False Imprisonment is a criminal offence, and it is not necessarily an "intentional" offence, i.e. it can be recklessness. There is no "reasonable excuse" provision.

It's perhaps of interest that false imprisonment is an arrestable offence. This raises the improbable but Pythonesque scenario of a gurrier being arrested by a Supermacs security guard, only for the Supermacs security guard to be arrested in turn by the gurrier.

Needless to say there is also the possibility of liability in tort.

In short, for cases like the OP, just don't risk it. Or if you do, have a brass neck and deep pockets.

Your excellent explanations are always most well revived by me, even when I didn't ask the question

mikemac1

conorh91 wrote: »

Indeed, and equally unlikely.

I'd await clarification from the OP, but unless it was a glass bottle, or caused damage in the course of a spillage, no it's just a non-starter.

How can you possibly intend criminal damage by pegging a plastic bottle on a floor, especially an empty one?

Just a standard plastic lucozade bottle you can buy in every newsagent in Ireland. Only pubs sell the glass bottles as far as I know

Full yes. Nobody hit. Just thrown fairly hard into the shop. It didn't hit anyone and just clattered off a fridge.

conorh91

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You're kinda changing the story yourself there. .

No, I was just trying to read between the lines. Since the OP didn't initially mention a full bottle, or a bottle which struck any furniture, I just presumed to exclude them.

Even if it didn't cause damage or he just fired it randomly, he was reckless as to whether damage would be caused, which again would fall under an attempt to commit criminal damage

No, intention and recklessness are two completely different fault elements, even though they are adjacent under the Act.

Given what the OP has clarified, I agree that the Security Guard could claim that the crime of recklessness towards criminal damage had occurred.

Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for the SG to have reasonable cause to suspect such a crime has occurred. The test is one of necessity. The crime must have occurred. That's a pretty high bar. And it's just the first one. There are at least three bars applicable to the facts, as mentioned earlier.

In any case, the OP asked whether the detained man could take an action against the security guard/ the premises. The answer is yes, and he could conceivably succeed. Anyone who discounts that possibility is failing to engage with the limited facts available.

edit: and by the way, I'm approaching this from a position of criticism of S.4 of the Criminal Law Act, which I think is too liberal in favour of those who are suspected of having commited a crime, and particularly, assault or a public order offence. Just because I'm saying the detained man might have a case, doesn't mean I think this is fair.

Little CuChulainn

conorh91 wrote: »

No, I was just trying to read between the lines. Since the OP didn't initially mention a full bottle, or a bottle which struck any furniture, I just presumed to exclude them.

No, intention and recklessness are two completely different fault elements, even though they are adjacent under the Act.

Given what the OP has clarified, I agree that the Security Guard could claim that the crime of recklessness towards criminal damage had occurred.

Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for the SG to have reasonable cause to suspect such a crime has occurred. The test is one of necessity. The crime must have occurred. That's a pretty high bar. And it's just the first one. There are at least three bars applicable to the facts, as mentioned earlier.

In any case, the OP asked whether the detained man could take an action against the security guard/ the premises. The answer is yes, and he could conceivably succeed. Anyone who discounts that possibility is failing to engage with the limited facts available.

edit: and by the way, I'm approaching this from a position of criticism of S.4 of the Criminal Law Act, which I think is too liberal in favour of those who are suspected of having commited a crime, and particularly, assault or a public order offence. Just because I'm saying the detained man might have a case, doesn't mean I think this is fair.

An arrestable offence has been committed, the security guard saw the person committing it and detained him as he tried to get a taxi out of there. Seems to fit all the ingredients pretty well to put the guard in a good place to defend himself.

conorh91

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

An arrestable offence has been committed, the security guard saw the person committing it

If prosecutions were that easy, you could broadly eradicate the practice of criminal law.

As a high profile example, the man who drove a truck into the gates of Leinster House, causing thousands of euro of damage, was found not guilty of criminal damage.

Now, in the best interest of public policy, the Gardai are given wide leeway in conducting such arrests where they merely suspect an offence has been committed. Hence, the driver of that truck I'm referring to, could never have made out a case of false imprisonment.

Joe Soap Security Guard, or Joe Public, is given no such latitude. If he arrests a person where an ex-post facto offence has not been committed, he may have to take out his chequebook.

The law does not care what Joe Soap's intention was in circumstances where the Court finds no offence was committed.

All I'm suggesting is that people should be cognisant of that fact. It is foolhardy to dismiss the security guard's, or his employer's, liability.

Is this situation ideal? No. But it's the legal situation.

Little CuChulainn

Whether an arrestable offence has been committed or not is not dependent on a successful prosecution. The truck driver may have been found not guilty but that doesn't mean the injured party was not the victim of criminal damage. That's a ludicrous position to take.

conorh91

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Whether an arrestable offence has been committed or not is not dependent on a successful prosecution.

No, of course it doesn't. Nobody claimed this.

But in circumstances where there is no doubt that the man who threw the bottle is the detained man, and the detained man is acquitted of an arrestable offence, and the detained man no longer stands accused of having committed another arrestable offence in respect of the same act, then the detained man may seek damages and succeed, because no arrestable offence seems to have been committed.

The truck driver may have been found not guilty but that doesn't mean the injured party was not the victim of criminal damage. That's a ludicrous position to take.

I am trying to demonstrate the difficulty in prosecuting seemingly straightforward cases.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

No, of course it doesn't. Nobody claimed this.

But in circumstances where there is no doubt that the man who threw the bottle is the detained man, and the detained man is acquitted of an arrestable offence, and the detained man no longer stands accused of having committed another arrestable offence in respect of the same act, then the detained man may seek damages and succeed, because no arrestable offence seems to have been committed.

I am trying to demonstrate the difficulty in prosecuting seemingly straightforward cases.

But the test is not did an arrest able offence occur or not it is did the person performing the arrest reasonable suspect such an offence occurred. The answer to that question can only be based on evidence given in court.

Easy cases may become difficult for a many reasons even what at first glance seems like a slam dunk.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

But the test is not did an arrest able offence occur or not it is did the person performing the arrest reasonable suspect such an offence occurred.

No it isn't.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

No, of course it doesn't. Nobody claimed this.

But in circumstances where there is no doubt that the man who threw the bottle is the detained man, and the detained man is acquitted of an arrestable offence, and the detained man no longer stands accused of having committed another arrestable offence in respect of the same act, then the detained man may seek damages and succeed, because no arrestable offence seems to have been committed.

I am trying to demonstrate the difficulty in prosecuting seemingly straightforward cases.

conorh91 wrote: »

No it isn't.

You are correct reasonable cause but the case stands reasonable cause will either be made out on the evidence or not. Is it reasonable to suspect a person you say throwing something into a shop of having committed an arrestable offence as I say that depends on the persons evidence. Same with the requirement to show attempt to avoid arrest.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You are correct reasonable cause but the case stands reasonable cause will either be made out on the evidence or not. Is it reasonable to suspect a person you say throwing something into a shop of having committed an arrestable offence as I say that depends on the persons evidence.

Reasonableness does not come into ex-post facto arrests by members of the public.

Read again s.4(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. It deals with ex post facto arrests. It is different to s.4(1), which deals with arrests in the course of the commission of an offence.

If no offence was committed, the arresting person (having arrested a man after reasonably believing an offence has been committed) has gotten themselves into some hot water, however reasonable their belief.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

Reasonableness does not come into ex-post facto arrests by members of the public.

Read again s.4(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. It deals with ex post facto arrests. It is different to s.4(1), which deals with arrests in the course of the commission of an offence.

If no offence was committed, the arresting person (having arrested a man after reasonably believing an offence has been committed) has gotten themselves into some hot water, however reasonable their belief.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), where an arrestable offence has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

i believe satisfied by witnessing the event first hand a member may not witness an event first hand so could not reasonable go as far as guilt. As I said it will come down to evidence in court. I have been searching Justis and cant find any case law on this issue at all. But will continue looking.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

i believe satisfied by witnessing the event first hand a member may not witness an event first hand so could not reasonable go as far as guilt.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this says.

If you see a man committing an act, and with reasonable cause, suspect him to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence, you can arrest him.

If, however, you subsequently follow him out on the street, pursue him some distance away, and make an arrest, you'd want to be very sure that whatever act he committed was an arrestable offence. Subsection (2) is different to subsection (1). It is unambiguous. No reasonable beliefs allowed*.


*Reasonable cause only applies to recognition of the accused.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this says.

If you see a man committing an act, and with reasonable cause, suspect him to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence, you can arrest him.

If, however, you subsequently follow him out on the street, pursue him some distance away, and make an arrest, you'd want to be very sure that whatever act he committed was an arrestable offence. Subsection (2) is different to subsection (1). It is unambiguous. No reasonable beliefs allowed*.


*Reasonable cause only applies to recognition of the accused.

I never said other wise. there needs to be reasonable belief that the person is guilty of an arrestable offense and will try and avoid arrest by AGS all can or can not be given by evidence.

In Quinns book it also says under sub section 6 that the common law power of arrest may be available where there is an arrest to prevent personal injury or a breach of the peace.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I never said other wise.

You said

the test is not did an arrest able offence occur or not it is did the person performing the arrest reasonable suspect such an offence occurred.

That is not true in this case.

there needs to be reasonable belief that the person is guilty of an arrestable offense

No, there has to be reasonable belief that the person arrested is the same person who committed the offence.

There effectively has to be certainty that the act complained does amount to (i) an offence, and (ii) is arrestable.

where there is an arrest to prevent personal injury or a breach of the peace.

Neither situation is relevant to the facts of this case.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

You said



That is not true in this case.

No, there has to be reasonable belief that the person arrested is the same person who committed the offence.

There effectively has to be certainty that the act complained does amount to (i) an offence, and (ii) is arrestable.

Neither situation is relevant to the facts of this case.

it is for a court to decide on the evidence what will apply or not.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

it is for a court to decide on the evidence what will apply or not.

Yes, based on the s.4(2) of the Act. Which is unambiguous and, I would have assumed, widely known and accepted.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes, based on the s.4(2) of the Act. Which is unambiguous and, I would have assumed, widely known and accepted.

yes and if the court decides that the persons evidence satisfies all the tests in section 4 then its lawful otherwise not

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

yes and if the court decides that the persons evidence satisfies all the tests in section 4 then its lawful

If my aunt had a bollocks, etc.

I'm off to the pub.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

If my aunt had a bollocks, etc.

I'm off to the pub.

No it's not making something it is not it is the court deciding if something is lawful or not based on the evidence. I can not say if this was unlawful or not.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

it is the court deciding if something is lawful or not based on the evidence. I can not say if this was unlawful or not.

Nobody is asking you to. I really don't know what it is you're trying to say.