Friend Wrongfully accused of theft

Trhiggy83

A friend of mine was wrongfully accused of theft of a handbag the other night in a nightclub and was detained by security staff until the gardai arrived.

The person that made the accusation subsequently could not convince the gardai that they actually had a case as they could not prove anything when questioned.

Can private security staff legally detain anyone considering there wasnt any proof in the first instance apart from some persons drunken accusation.

I was talking to the nightclub the next day about it and they said it was their policy to hold people if there was accusations made on their premises.

I would love to hear peoples views on the legalities of security wrongfully detaining someone.

My friend was very upset by the whole incident and i would like to hear from anyone who have encountered this before.

Systemic Risk

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

A friend of mine was wrongfully accused of theft of a handbag the other night in a nightclub and was detained by security staff until the gardai arrived.

The person that made the accusation subsequently could not convince the gardai that they actually had a case as they could not prove anything when questioned.

Can private security staff legally detain anyone considering there wasnt any proof in the first instance apart from some persons drunken accusation.

I was talking to the nightclub the next day about it and they said it was their policy to hold people if there was accusations made on their premises.

I would love to hear peoples views on the legalities of security wrongfully detaining someone.

My friend was very upset by the whole incident and i would like to hear from anyone who have encountered this before.

They have no right to hold him without proof of wrongdoing. Private security can carry out a citizens arrest like anyone else but they better be sure the person was in the wrong. If you look up "false imprisonment ireland" in google one of first links will explain. Im on my phone so cant post the link.

I worked shop security many moons ago and have seen civil cases come out of such incidents. Never heard of a security guard being criminally prosecuted for a wrongful citizens arrest but it is a criminal offence to restrict someones liberty.

Trhiggy83

Systemic Risk wrote: »

They have no right to hold him without proof of wrongdoing. Private security can carry out a citizens arrest like anyone else but they better be sure the person was in the wrong. If you look up "false imprisonment ireland" in google one of first links will explain. Im on my phone so cant post the link.

I worked shop security many moons ago and have seen civil cases come out of such incidents. Never heard of a security guard being criminally prosecuted for a wrongful citizens arrest but it is a criminal offence to restrict someones liberty.

Its a bit of a grey area alright, hard to know what would be the best course of action. Seems like private security firms can do as they please with very little repercussions.

If the same thing happened during the day and you were falsely detained in a shop there would be a very strong case.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

Its a bit of a grey area alright, hard to know what would be the best course of action. Seems like private security firms can do as they please with very little repercussions.

If the same thing happened during the day and you were falsely detained in a shop there would be a very strong case.

Just because it happens at night, in a night club does not mean that there may not be a civil claim under a number of headings. Also if the person was physically restrained or in fear of being struck, then there may even be a criminal case to answer by the security.

If the OP's friend is very aggrieved seek legal advice sooner rather than later, it will be necessary if any action is being brought for a letter to go to the night club to preserve any CCTV from the night.

If the OP's friend is not too bothered just don't go near the night club again.

camphor

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

Its a bit of a grey area alright, hard to know what would be the best course of action. Seems like private security firms can do as they please with very little repercussions.

If the same thing happened during the day and you were falsely detained in a shop there would be a very strong case.

It is not a grey area. The best course of action is to visit a solicitor and tell them the full facts. The time of day makes no difference whatsoever. Security personnel don't need to see something themselves but they should be 100 % sure that an offence was committed and the person they are detaining did it. If this was witnessed by others there is also a case for defamation.

bassey

I know of a person who received a 5 figure settlement after taking a case of false imprisonment and defamation against a well know clothes retailer after being wrongfully detained on suspicion of theft.

So it's definately not alright to do so.

Trhiggy83

Cheers for the feedback lads, some legal advice may be the best option at this stage

Bepolite

At worst, a solicitors letter will be treated with a bit of seriousness.

I'd consider how you'd feel on the other-side of this is if a genuine complaint was made about a stolen wallet.

pk82

Section 4 Criminal Law Act allows ANY person to arrest/detain another as long as reasonable suspicion exists that an arrestable offence has been committed.

Does not happen too often as most people do not know what an arrestable offence is AND they leave themselves open to civil actions for unlawful arrest

Your right to liberty is enshrined in the constitutuon

Seek good legal advice - you may have a case for damages

Santa Cruz

There is certainly a case for damages. Falsely imprisoned and accused of theft. There may have been a work colleague, business client in the club who witnessed you being taken away by security. Imagine the effect on your reputation if they start telling people how they saw you been detained for theft
I'd say there's a handy 10000 to be made

Whitewater-AGS

pk82 wrote: »

Section 4 Criminal Law Act allows ANY person to arrest/detain another as long as reasonable suspicion exists that an arrestable offence has been committed.

Does not happen too often as most people do not know what an arrestable offence is AND they leave themselves open to civil actions for unlawful arrest

Your right to liberty is enshrined in the constitutuon

Seek good legal advice - you may have a case for damages

That's incorrect a Garda my arrest on reasonable suspicion, any person cannot they must know an arrestable offence is occuring

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

I think we can all parse the language and come up with our own views; it's neither "reasonable suspicion" nor "knowledge" but reasonable cause for suspecting.

Irrespective, it is an idiotic security guard who would rely on the word of a third party for effecting an arrest in circumstances such as this. It is hard to see how it would not be the case that the person alleging to have seen the theft who should have undertaken any arrest rather than suggesting a non AGS third party do so, irrespective of their bouncer credentials.

4.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence.


(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.


(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant anyone whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.


(4) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may only be effected by a person under subsection (1) or (2) where he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.


(5) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.


(6) This section shall not affect the operation of any enactment restricting the institution of proceedings for an offence or prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law apart from this section.

camphor

Marcusm wrote: »

I think we can all parse the language and come up with our own views; it's neither "reasonable suspicion" nor "knowledge" but reasonable cause for suspecting.

Irrespective, it is an idiotic security guard who would rely on the word of a third party for effecting an arrest in circumstances such as this. It is hard to see how it would not be the case that the person alleging to have seen the theft who should have undertaken any arrest rather than suggesting a non AGS third party do so, irrespective of their bouncer credentials.

4.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence.


(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.


(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant anyone whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.


(4) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may only be effected by a person under subsection (1) or (2) where he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.


(5) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.


(6) This section shall not affect the operation of any enactment restricting the institution of proceedings for an offence or prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law apart from this section.

Note the differences between subsections 4 (2) and 4(3). In 4(2) an offence must have been committed.

In 4(3) a Garda only has to suspect an offence was committed.
A security man cannot rely on 4(3). He is left with 4(2).
How does a security man prove an offence like theft was committed if nobody was caught for it?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

camphor wrote: »

Note the differences between subsections 4 (2) and 4(3). In 4(2) an offence must have been committed.

In 4(3) a Garda only has to suspect an offence was committed.
A security man cannot rely on 4(3). He is left with 4(2).
How does a security man prove an offence like theft was committed if nobody was caught for it?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm in agreement; I can't see how the security guard can have acted if they witnessed nothing. Irrespective of whether the person detained was in possession of the stolen item, I cannot see that they can have "knowledge" and therefore I can't see how they can have acted lawfully in any circumstance.

NoQuarter

Defamation claim is sure to be met with a qualified privilege defence. Be careful pursuing it if you are.

camphor

NoQuarter wrote: »

Defamation claim is sure to be met with a qualified privilege defence. Be careful pursuing it if you are.

Qualified privilege doesn't arise in this case. The club were not protecting their own property.

Zambia

Reasonable cause does not mean "actually see".

It means exactly that your actions given the circumstances are reasonable.

If an old lady tugs your arm on the street and points to someone and says that man stole my bag.

The 24 year old male she points to is indeed carrying a pink ladies bag and begins to walk quickly away. Is it reasonable to tackle him for the old lady?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Zambia wrote: »

Reasonable cause does not mean "actually see".

It means exactly that your actions given the circumstances are reasonable.

If an old lady tugs your arm on the street and points to someone and says that man stole my bag.

The 24 year old male she points to is indeed carrying a pink ladies bag and begins to walk quickly away. Is it reasonable to tackle him for the old lady?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it was me on the street in those circumstances and the 24 year old guy acted squirrelly, I would probably intervene. However, that is completely distinguishable from the situation described - there is no suggestion of the same immediacy in the original post, no apparent evidence of theft (visible bag) and it is suggested that the accuser was drunk.

In those circumstances, the security guard was wrong to intervene. Their job is to ensure safety and absence of violence at the venue not to determine squabbles of which they have no special interest. They could have asked the other person to remain but they should not have detained them.

Completely different from the on street circumstances you describe.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ardle1

Every detail has to be looked into, did the victim phone the Gardaí?and after the victim approached door staff, was the accused 'asked' to 'please wait while we view our CCTV'!! There's a lot to take into account! if your friend is willing to take action........

Bepolite

Putting aside any creative scenarios and subjective experience if an arrestable offence has been committed a member of the public may arrest a person suspected on reasonable grounds of committing that offence. They do not need to have witnessed it. The legislation is pretty clear to be fair. I'm open to correction if someone has a case interpreting it.

Do pay careful attention to subsection (4).

A security guard would be very unwise to intervene in all fairness.

CCTV will be overwritten as soon as any sort of letter arrives in the post.

ardle1

If a crime has taken place! is it not up to the Gardaí there and then to view CCTV? I personally think that would be a no brainer, have we got the full story here?

schemingbohemia

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

A friend of mine was wrongfully accused of theft of a handbag the other night in a nightclub and was detained by security staff until the gardai arrived.

The person that made the accusation subsequently could not convince the gardai that they actually had a case as they could not prove anything when questioned.

Can private security staff legally detain anyone considering there wasnt any proof in the first instance apart from some persons drunken accusation.

I was talking to the nightclub the next day about it and they said it was their policy to hold people if there was accusations made on their premises.

I would love to hear peoples views on the legalities of security wrongfully detaining someone.

My friend was very upset by the whole incident and i would like to hear from anyone who have encountered this before.

Will it not really come down to how the friend was "detained" - if they were asked to hang on until the Garda come and they agreed that is not an illegal detention - did your friend state "No I am not willing to remain here, you have no right to detain me" - or was it more like the former where they were asked not to leave and to remain with the security guards?

camphor

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Will it not really come down to how the friend was "detained" - if they were asked to hang on until the Garda come and they agreed that is not an illegal detention - did your friend state "No I am not willing to remain here, you have no right to detain me" - or was it more like the former where they were asked not to leave and to remain with the security guards?

If a person is made to feel that they cannot leave, that is sufficient. A person does not have to be pro-actively seeking to go.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.